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 -
RavenHawk

How will Impeachment play out?

2,651 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RavenHawk

I’m curious to see what the ratings are going to be for this week?  I don’t think that many are going to watch.  There is nothing new, just more of the same.  What people are waiting for is for this to move to the Senate.  Then the ratings will rival a superbowl.  The reason is quite obvious.  If this gets to the Senate, the Dems are going to get HAMMMERD!  That is what everybody is waiting for.  I think people are smart enough to know when it’s time to bring down the self-righteous a few notches.  I do think that there is confusion as to what impeachment means.  It is not removal.  It is merely the trial.  That is why I am for impeachment.  Because we will have a real trial with Due Process.  If that happens, the Dems will be severely embarrassed.  Why stop them from committing seppuku?  And that leads me to this, I don’t think the Progs are going to vote for impeachment.  Enough of them are very aware of the deadly game they are trying to play.

 

But let’s consider what will happen if they do vote for impeachment.  The trial definitely will not happen before Christmas.  I think McConnell will hold off until the IG Report is out and the Durham/Barr reports.  There will be indictments that come out of this (just saw a story about Hilary donors involved in corruption - tip of the iceberg).  At the very least, Senate committees will be investigating these first.  The MSM will not be able to ignore or hide these and the House will be compelled to do their own investigations.  It won’t do them any good.  For whom does the bell toll?  It tolls for thee, Progressives!

 

What will some of the first witnesses be?  Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the “whistleblower”, Jerry Nadler (just play Nadler’s testimony from 1998), Adam Schiff.  They may invite Jonathan Turley back.  He pretty much devastated the Dem position today.  Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

 

Does anybody consider how nations interact?  Much of it is Quid Pro Quo.  That is one of the President’s main powers.  Trump hasn’t done anything every other President has done.  Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

 

There is nothing ultimately wrong with a President using the office to dig up dirt on their opponent.  I.e., the “sin” of Watergate, was not the cloak-n-dagger, but the coverup.  Most of the time, such activities are kept on the Q-T.  It’s a matter of degrees between the Q-T and a coverup.  Also, it is inappropriate to create dirt to commit crimes.  Who is it that created the Dossier?  There was nothing wrong with Obama wanting to dig up dirt on Trump but having to *invent* something?  Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

 

Is Biden somehow exempt from facing charges of corruption, if he is a Presidential candidate?  Biden is the weak link in the chain.  If this goes too much further, I fully expect that Hunter or Joe will die in mysterious circumstances to buy silence.  Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

 

You know the Dems are in trouble when they start evoking the Founding Fathers.  Do not pass go, do not collect $200. 

 

The President can defy Congress.  That is one of his powers.  The Executive and the Legislative are *CO-EQUAL*.  The Judicial is the referee.  Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

 

Presidents can withhold aid for any number of reasons, especially when it is the President’s job to ensure the money is spent wisely.  That is another power of the President.  Every President has withheld aid.  I saw a very good and extensive list but didn’t endeavor to follow up with it.  But Obama withheld Javelins from Ukraine but sent non-lethal military aid instead.  Under Trump, Ukraine got those Javelins.  Do not pass go, do not collect $200

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

I think the Dems will get their “win” in that Impeachment gets to the Senate, and the Republicans a “win” in that it dies a quick death there. The merry-go-round of name calling, screaming at clouds, and studious avoidance of actually governing the nation will continue and some dipstick will tweet something stupid.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
16 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I think the Dems will get their “win” in that Impeachment gets to the Senate, and the Republicans a “win” in that it dies a quick death there. The merry-go-round of name calling, screaming at clouds, and studious avoidance of actually governing the nation will continue and some dipstick will tweet something stupid.

Like I said, that’s not much of a win for the Dems.  It is an act of seppuku.  People with common sense usually back away from such behavior.  Who is it that isn’t trying to involve themselves in governance?  They would rather go on a witch hunt.  Although, the House did pass the robo call bill.  At least that was something.  But our borders are still open, no follow through on trade deals, our largest cities are deteriorating.  Despite that lack of help, the chief law enforcement officer is defending and protecting this nation and improving the economy.  Dems can’t compete with that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
49 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

...

Presidents can withhold aid for any number of reasons, especially when it is the President’s job to ensure the money is spent wisely.  That is another power of the President.  Every President has withheld aid.  I saw a very good and extensive list but didn’t endeavor to follow up with it.  But Obama withheld Javelins from Ukraine but sent non-lethal military aid instead.  Under Trump, Ukraine got those Javelins.  Do not pass go, do not collect $200

At present there is a discussion concerning the Impoundment Control Act.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

and the Republicans a “win” in that it dies a quick death there.

That isn't a safe assumption, by ANY means.  I suspect that the Senate will use this to drag the truth out of a few critical witnesses OR cause them to plead 5th amendment protection from incriminating themselves.  Either way it is going to harm them in 2020.  If anyone needed actual proof of the reality of TDS, THIS will present it.  They will have bent to the will of those in the Party who are totally motivated by sheer hatred and are willing to take damage in the long-term just for spite and to hang an "I" next to his name.  

If I had the authority I'd force Biden, his son, Schiff and Chalupa to testify OR plead the 5th.  I'd also include Char-a-mello and his "bro' Sean Misko.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/schiff-staffer-sean-misko-worked-with-leaker-eric-ciaramella-in-white-house-and-is-linked-to-burisma-backed-think-tank/

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/11/20/eric-ciaramella-bro-like-friendship-nsc-sean-misko-now-member-schiffs-staff/

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/30/mystery-revealed-cia-gossiper-eric-ciaramella-democrat-former-nsc-staff-worked-with-joe-biden-and-john-brennan/comment-page-2/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/schiff-hired-former-nsc-colleague-of-alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-the-day-after-trumps-ukraine-call

Apparently, Misko became a member of the "Schiffstaffel" the day after the Ukraine call.  What a coincidence, eh?

 

Edited by and then
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
26 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

At present there is a discussion concerning the Impoundment Control Act.

Of which the President still has wide latitude.  And again, the Executive is *CO EQUAL* to Congress.  He can ignore what they do (that is not impeachable).  That is what is meant as *CO EQUAL*.  Congress can check the President and the President can check Congress.  If either does not like it, they take it to the Judicial.  Many times they pull up short, because one or the other is playing for time.  That’s what is going on in the House Judicial Committee and I don’t think it will go to the Senate.  I don’t think the Progs are that stupid.  I hope they are.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
9 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Of which the President still has wide latitude.  And again, the Executive is *CO EQUAL* to Congress.  He can ignore what they do (that is not impeachable).  That is what is meant as *CO EQUAL*.  Congress can check the President and the President can check Congress.  If either does not like it, they take it to the Judicial.  Many times they pull up short, because one or the other is playing for time.  That’s what is going on in the House Judicial Committee and I don’t think it will go to the Senate.  I don’t think the Progs are that stupid.  I hope they are.

You're missing the bit where any deferral is to be communicated to congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
8 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That’s what is going on in the House Judicial Committee and I don’t think it will go to the Senate.  I don’t think the Progs are that stupid.  I hope they are.

I felt that way once but I think they've made the commitment and are too far along to stop.  I just hope McConnell has the guts to REALLY have a trial.  He could hurt them VERY badly with strategically called witnesses and a proper line of questioning under oath.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

You're missing the bit where any deferral is to be communicated to congress.

If they follow through and vote to Impeach, do you believe the witnesses the R's would call would actually risk perjury?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

You're missing the bit where any deferral is to be communicated to congress.

Not missing a thing.  The manner and timing is up to the President.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
5 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Not missing a thing.  The manner and timing is up to the President.

Sure "same day" is open to interpretation now; or, is that fake news?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
16 minutes ago, and then said:

If they follow through and vote to Impeach, do you believe the witnesses the R's would call would actually risk perjury?

Perjury is moot, isn't it?  We all know what the Senate is going to do.

Share this post


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

Perjury is moot, isn't it? 

Only if you consider lying to a court to be a moot point.  My guess is they'll plead the 5th and let their 5th column continue to try to cover for them.  Funny thing is... more and more Americans have seen and are seeing this media for the propaganda outlet it has become.  

Those on the Left seem to think that once they get rid of Trump, everything will settle back down and they'll be able to tell smooth lies and be accepted again.  Not gonna happen.  They used nullification to ignore rules and laws with which they disagreed.  That is now a permanent option for all of us.  The Feds don't have near enough cells to stop this "resistance".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Perjury is moot, isn't it?  We all know what the Senate is going to do.

It sounds like you feel that the D's shouldn't bother with testifying in this trial.  Those who are called will have two choices and they will have to make one of them.  Take the 5th and look guilty or testify under oath.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO

so the republican defense is not that trump did no wrong - but that such wrong doing is ok because others did wrong too?

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
12 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

so the republican defense is not that trump did no wrong

Care to cite the offense and the statute that he broke?  Care to name the witness (s) that heard him demand a QPQ or bribery?  Face it... your opinion of the man is not enough to convict him of crimes.   Ciaramello and his "bro" Sean Misko were working for Schiff to take Trump down and, yet again, they failed and are looking foolish.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
16 minutes ago, and then said:

Care to cite the offense and the statute that he broke?  Care to name the witness (s) that heard him demand a QPQ or bribery?  Face it... your opinion of the man is not enough to convict him of crimes.   Ciaramello and his "bro" Sean Misko were working for Schiff to take Trump down and, yet again, they failed and are looking foolish.

That he abused his position of power is enough for me. Despite what he thinks the president is not or at least should not be an omni powerful immune to all contraints. As for your second point - does the US require evidence that a blackmailer or briber actually said the words to convict him / her? Deeds speak louder than words.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
16 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

That he abused his position of power is enough for me. Despite what he thinks the president is not or at least should not be an omni powerful immune to all contraints. As for your second point - does the US require evidence that a blackmailer or briber actually said the words to convict him / her? Deeds speak louder than words.

HOW did he abuse his power?  Refusing to be specific tends to make you look guilty of partisanship rather than having actual evidence of his wrongdoing.  Honest, unbiased people would just admit that.  I'll say it again... not one witness ever testified that they saw or heard a QPQ OR evidence he demanded bribes.  The investigation into corruption was not contingent on him doing anything.  In fact, the funds were released and there was no promise of an investigation beforehand nor did any investigation begin quietly.  The accusations lack proof of any kind that he did ANYTHING WRONG.

I believe this all comes back to a group of partisans who refuse to accept his legitimacy and who feel he needs to be removed for that reason.  That's not the way our system works.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Is Biden somehow exempt from facing charges of corruption, if he is a Presidential candidate?  Biden is the weak link in the chain.  If this goes too much further, I fully expect that Hunter or Joe will die in mysterious circumstances to buy silence.  Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

 

I wonder if the main reason that Biden is standing for Presidential Candidate is to give him immunity from
Ukraine investigation - and by association give anyone else (in the Dem Party) cover who has been involved
in corrupt practices in the country - from helping to engineer the coup in 2014... to benefiting financially...

He does appear the be the weakest link in the chain... so in usual reverse reality fashion he is presented
as the strongest... but surely he is well passed his Sell By Date  (in terms of mental fitness not age)

and maybe he will be taken out of the equation somehow at some point when his usefullness runs out...
and Bloomberg? can take his place as favourite to lead the Democrats into the 2020 election,,,?

 

  

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

HOW did he abuse his power?

Sort of ironic that you mention the above in a thread that begins by mentioning the Judiciary Committee hearings, since the testimony given in those hearings specifically addresses your question and, indeed, the purpose of the Judiciary hearings is to provide an answer to your exact question. Perhaps you should tune in? They lay it all out perfectly.

Here, have some highlights:

 

Seriously, just rewatch the opening round of questions and you'll have your answer. Or continue hunting for worms with your head in the sand. 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year

Pay attention to the question he asks at the end.

Edited by Buzz_Light_Year
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
20 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Pay attention to the question he asks at the end.

Except she didn't attack Baron Trump. Her comment was basically, 'Trump can name his son Baron, but that doesn't mean he can appoint Barons'. Basically she used the choice of name to highlight Trump's belief that the Presidency is basically a monarchy, answerable to no one (an argument Trump has made on camera, along with his lawyers making it in court). Baron wasn't specifically addressed, only the choice of name Trump used in order to highlight a point.

So, let's not pretend that she attacked the President's son. That's a blatant and dishonest representation of what happened.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Except she didn't attack Baron Trump. Her comment was basically, 'Trump can name his son Baron, but that doesn't mean he can appoint Barons'. Basically she used the choice of name to highlight Trump's belief that the Presidency is basically a monarchy, answerable to no one (an argument Trump has made on camera, along with his lawyers making it in court) Baron wasn't specifically addressed, only the choice of name Trump used in order to highlight a point.

So, let's not pretend that she attacked the President's son. That's a blatant and dishonest representation of what happened.

Baron had nothing to do with why I posted the video. :rofl: but you wanted it to. :rofl:

Starts at 4:25.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
9 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Baron had nothing to do with why I posted the video. :rofl: but you wanted it to. :rofl:

Starts at 4:25.

Rhetorical question aimed at law professors.

Brilliant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
23 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Baron had nothing to do with why I posted the video. :rofl: but you wanted it to. :rofl:

Starts at 4:25.

I've seen others on here and elsewhere try to make that argument and those criticisms from the Rep do come near the end of the video, so not really a major error on my part, eh?

So are you claiming that in order to know if someone is guilty of an crime, we need them to openly admit to the crime in question? That's what this claim boils down to. Everyone working for Trump knew what his policy was with Ukraine - they were all briefed in some way - Trump basically admitted it on the phone call, sent Giuliani as his point man who then briefed Sondland, Mulvaney admitted to it on camera, emails show them scrambling to find a reason to explain publicly the reasons for it, TRUMP ADMITTED IT ON FOX AND FRIENDS TWO WEEKS AGO (sorry for caps, but for Christ's sake man).

Jesus, if this was a RICO case or even a normal court case the guy would be a goner. 

But 'Trump hasn't admitted it on tape' and no one with direct instructions from him have provided evidence, so he's obviously not guilty? That's your argument? That's patently ridiculous. Especially when we consider that every fact witness with direct interaction with Trump (outwith Sondland, who confirmed everything, by the way) who could testify has been blocked from doing so by Trump himself. Farmer made this point the other day. This Republican argument is something like, 'You are prohibited from questioning any fact witnesses'. Before going on to say, 'You don't have any fact witnesses'. Well, duh. And that's why the obstruction of Congress articles are being suggested. Also, I refer you back to the caps above.

So completely stupid is that argument that my neck turns red in empathy for the embarrassment that those who spout it should feel. Though, to be fair, that's basically been my feeling towards any of the people who continually try to defend Trump.

 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 2

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.