(01-24-2020 04:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:27 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:09 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Bless your heart.

Regardless, had they gone to the courts, they would have been attacked by the right for purposely pushing this out to effect the election.

There was no winning hand here.

Bless yours. If they were serious about witnesses they should have went to court. That's how it works. Chances are given the circumstances the case would have been fast tracked. But they didn't do that. Maybe because there is a better than average chance they would have lost.

That's not HOW it works, it's what trump decided to do here...which is really unprecedented in these types of things throughout our history.

Presidents don't exercise executive privilege? This has been a partisan witch hunt from day 1 and you know it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but trump has not officially asserted any executive privilege here so far. He's only told folks to ignore subpoenas and has not turned over any documents.

You would be wrong. The defense just spent an hour discussing the different legal objections the White House has raised as reasons they have refused to cooperate with certain House requests. The House knows exactly what they are as well because they are contained in House correspondence with the WH.

raising a reason and officially asserting executive privilege are not the same thing

The house never subpoenaed... Trump said he'd fight it if they did... they decided not to... he therefore never asserted privelege

FTR, he can assert it and they can challenge his assertion. Happens all the time.

As Dersh pointed out, the House had not voted on an impeachment hearing so the subpoenas weren’t or wouldn’t be valid. This is a sham from the beginning. Democrats hate America and the rule of law. They also hate the electoral college. The 2nd amendment. The 1st amendment.....hell, they just hate everything.

(01-27-2020 06:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 04:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:27 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:09 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Bless yours. If they were serious about witnesses they should have went to court. That's how it works. Chances are given the circumstances the case would have been fast tracked. But they didn't do that. Maybe because there is a better than average chance they would have lost.

That's not HOW it works, it's what trump decided to do here...which is really unprecedented in these types of things throughout our history.

Presidents don't exercise executive privilege? This has been a partisan witch hunt from day 1 and you know it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but trump has not officially asserted any executive privilege here so far. He's only told folks to ignore subpoenas and has not turned over any documents.

You would be wrong. The defense just spent an hour discussing the different legal objections the White House has raised as reasons they have refused to cooperate with certain House requests. The House knows exactly what they are as well because they are contained in House correspondence with the WH.

No. I am not. You are. Sorry.

(01-27-2020 05:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 03:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 09:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you can't obstruct congress if you're knowingly hiding criminal or impeachable behavior!

SO you admit that you can if you're not?

No. I don't know all the ins and outs. And judging by the discussion among many experts on both sides, there is no real consensus either way.

You also realize that your comment above is inconsistent with our Constitution, right?

You have the right against self-incrimination... It's up to the prosecutor to prove it, not you to prove it isn't... While that doesn't specifically apply to the context here, I have a very hard time believing that a fundamental concept of our Constitution wouldn't apply to the President of the US in a trial like this.

So you believe it, and that's all that matters to you.

Let me ask you... if Biden IS guilty, how is this defense of him by attacking his accuser NOT obstruction? Not necessarily in the legal sense since few of us are lawyers (Owl is) but in the same context of your 'you can't obstruct' above?

SO, based on your own assertion, Biden's testimony, an investigation into him IS directly pertinent to the outcome

Regardless of any guilt of the Biden's, I would presume that does not afford our president the right to "break the law" to prove his guilt.

(01-27-2020 10:23 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  As Dersh pointed out, the House had not voted on an impeachment hearing so the subpoenas weren’t or wouldn’t be valid. This is a sham from the beginning. Democrats hate America and the rule of law. They also hate the electoral college. The 2nd amendment. The 1st amendment.....hell, they just hate everything.

The house dems kind of cobbled this together to look like something, when in fact it has more holes than a Swiss cheese. There is a lot of speculation, allegation, and innuendo, but there is no first-hand evidence that Donald Trump actually did anything culpable.

(01-28-2020 10:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 06:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 04:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:27 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That's not HOW it works, it's what trump decided to do here...which is really unprecedented in these types of things throughout our history.

Presidents don't exercise executive privilege? This has been a partisan witch hunt from day 1 and you know it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but trump has not officially asserted any executive privilege here so far. He's only told folks to ignore subpoenas and has not turned over any documents.

You would be wrong. The defense just spent an hour discussing the different legal objections the White House has raised as reasons they have refused to cooperate with certain House requests. The House knows exactly what they are as well because they are contained in House correspondence with the WH.

No. I am not. You are. Sorry.

I suggest you rewatch yesterday’s defense presentation on that specific topic. The legal grounds for ignoring the subpoenas was discussed in great detail.

(01-28-2020 11:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 06:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 04:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:27 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Presidents don't exercise executive privilege? This has been a partisan witch hunt from day 1 and you know it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but trump has not officially asserted any executive privilege here so far. He's only told folks to ignore subpoenas and has not turned over any documents.

You would be wrong. The defense just spent an hour discussing the different legal objections the White House has raised as reasons they have refused to cooperate with certain House requests. The House knows exactly what they are as well because they are contained in House correspondence with the WH.

No. I am not. You are. Sorry.

I suggest you rewatch yesterday’s defense presentation on that specific topic. The legal grounds for ignoring the subpoenas was discussed in great detail.

I was ONLY speaking to the FACT that the White House STILL has not invoked any sort of executive privilege.

Arguing out of both sides of your mouth once again.

There is ZERO evidence that a crime was committed. Zero evidence that Ukraine knew that they needed to do something to get a visit or aid from Trump. Zero. What you have is suspicion (which may be proven but hasn't been) that he wanted to, but no proof that he did. He may have even asked people to, but it did not happen. That's LITERALLY the best you have... that he WANTED to commit a crime, but was somehow or for some reason, prevented from doing so.

You are so convinced that it did that you're starting with that presumption, and then everything else falls from there.

THAT is your (and the left's) problem here. You start with a crime that you can't seem to prove, no matter what Bolton says... unless he says... yes, I told Ukraine do this or no weapons.... meaning HE would have broken the law on Trump's orders.

I doubt that's going to be the case

(01-28-2020 01:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Arguing out of both sides of your mouth once again.

There is ZERO evidence that a crime was committed. Zero evidence that Ukraine knew that they needed to do something to get a visit or aid from Trump. Zero. What you have is suspicion (which may be proven but hasn't been) that he wanted to, but no proof that he did. He may have even asked people to, but it did not happen. That's LITERALLY the best you have... that he WANTED to commit a crime, but was somehow or for some reason, prevented from doing so.

You are so convinced that it did that you're starting with that presumption, and then everything else falls from there.

THAT is your (and the left's) problem here. You start with a crime that you can't seem to prove, no matter what Bolton says... unless he says... yes, I told Ukraine do this or no weapons.... meaning HE would have broken the law on Trump's orders.

I doubt that's going to be the case

By many an expert analysis, there doesn't have to be a crime to be impeached and/or removed. There were no federal laws when the impeachment clause was added to the Constitution. Additionally, bribery is clearly spelled out in one of the articles IIRC.

http://theconversation.com/does-impeachm...ion-130354

(01-28-2020 01:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Arguing out of both sides of your mouth once again.

There is ZERO evidence that a crime was committed. Zero evidence that Ukraine knew that they needed to do something to get a visit or aid from Trump. Zero. What you have is suspicion (which may be proven but hasn't been) that he wanted to, but no proof that he did. He may have even asked people to, but it did not happen. That's LITERALLY the best you have... that he WANTED to commit a crime, but was somehow or for some reason, prevented from doing so.

You are so convinced that it did that you're starting with that presumption, and then everything else falls from there.

THAT is your (and the left's) problem here. You start with a crime that you can't seem to prove, no matter what Bolton says... unless he says... yes, I told Ukraine do this or no weapons.... meaning HE would have broken the law on Trump's orders.

I doubt that's going to be the case

By many an expert analysis, there doesn't have to be a crime to be impeached and/or removed. There were no federal laws when the impeachment clause was added to the Constitution. Additionally, bribery is clearly spelled out in one of the articles IIRC.

http://theconversation.com/does-impeachm...ion-130354

Bribery? Where is the proof there was bribery? Ukraine received the aid. No investigation was announced. Who was bribed? What was received in exchange?

(01-28-2020 11:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 11:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 06:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 04:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but trump has not officially asserted any executive privilege here so far. He's only told folks to ignore subpoenas and has not turned over any documents.

You would be wrong. The defense just spent an hour discussing the different legal objections the White House has raised as reasons they have refused to cooperate with certain House requests. The House knows exactly what they are as well because they are contained in House correspondence with the WH.

No. I am not. You are. Sorry.

I suggest you rewatch yesterday’s defense presentation on that specific topic. The legal grounds for ignoring the subpoenas was discussed in great detail.

I was ONLY speaking to the FACT that the White House STILL has not invoked any sort of executive privilege.

are you sure about that? be careful

(01-28-2020 02:46 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Arguing out of both sides of your mouth once again.

There is ZERO evidence that a crime was committed. Zero evidence that Ukraine knew that they needed to do something to get a visit or aid from Trump. Zero. What you have is suspicion (which may be proven but hasn't been) that he wanted to, but no proof that he did. He may have even asked people to, but it did not happen. That's LITERALLY the best you have... that he WANTED to commit a crime, but was somehow or for some reason, prevented from doing so.

You are so convinced that it did that you're starting with that presumption, and then everything else falls from there.

THAT is your (and the left's) problem here. You start with a crime that you can't seem to prove, no matter what Bolton says... unless he says... yes, I told Ukraine do this or no weapons.... meaning HE would have broken the law on Trump's orders.

I doubt that's going to be the case

By many an expert analysis, there doesn't have to be a crime to be impeached and/or removed. There were no federal laws when the impeachment clause was added to the Constitution. Additionally, bribery is clearly spelled out in one of the articles IIRC.

http://theconversation.com/does-impeachm...ion-130354

Bribery? Where is the proof there was bribery? Ukraine received the aid. No investigation was announced. Who was bribed? What was received in exchange?

Wait.. was it Bribery? Or was it extortion?

Can someone make up their mind as to what crime we're supposedly impeaching trump for?

(01-28-2020 10:03 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 05:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 03:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 09:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you can't obstruct congress if you're knowingly hiding criminal or impeachable behavior!

SO you admit that you can if you're not?

No. I don't know all the ins and outs. And judging by the discussion among many experts on both sides, there is no real consensus either way.

You also realize that your comment above is inconsistent with our Constitution, right?

You have the right against self-incrimination... It's up to the prosecutor to prove it, not you to prove it isn't... While that doesn't specifically apply to the context here, I have a very hard time believing that a fundamental concept of our Constitution wouldn't apply to the President of the US in a trial like this.

So you believe it, and that's all that matters to you.

Let me ask you... if Biden IS guilty, how is this defense of him by attacking his accuser NOT obstruction? Not necessarily in the legal sense since few of us are lawyers (Owl is) but in the same context of your 'you can't obstruct' above?

SO, based on your own assertion, Biden's testimony, an investigation into him IS directly pertinent to the outcome

Regardless of any guilt of the Biden's, I would presume that does not afford our president the right to "break the law" to prove his guilt.

Provide a link to the statute he broke.

(01-28-2020 04:03 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:03 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 05:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 03:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  SO you admit that you can if you're not?

No. I don't know all the ins and outs. And judging by the discussion among many experts on both sides, there is no real consensus either way.

You also realize that your comment above is inconsistent with our Constitution, right?

You have the right against self-incrimination... It's up to the prosecutor to prove it, not you to prove it isn't... While that doesn't specifically apply to the context here, I have a very hard time believing that a fundamental concept of our Constitution wouldn't apply to the President of the US in a trial like this.

So you believe it, and that's all that matters to you.

Let me ask you... if Biden IS guilty, how is this defense of him by attacking his accuser NOT obstruction? Not necessarily in the legal sense since few of us are lawyers (Owl is) but in the same context of your 'you can't obstruct' above?

SO, based on your own assertion, Biden's testimony, an investigation into him IS directly pertinent to the outcome

Regardless of any guilt of the Biden's, I would presume that does not afford our president the right to "break the law" to prove his guilt.

Provide a link to the statute he broke.

orange man bad is the law he broke.

(01-28-2020 04:03 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:03 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 05:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 03:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  SO you admit that you can if you're not?

No. I don't know all the ins and outs. And judging by the discussion among many experts on both sides, there is no real consensus either way.

You also realize that your comment above is inconsistent with our Constitution, right?

You have the right against self-incrimination... It's up to the prosecutor to prove it, not you to prove it isn't... While that doesn't specifically apply to the context here, I have a very hard time believing that a fundamental concept of our Constitution wouldn't apply to the President of the US in a trial like this.

So you believe it, and that's all that matters to you.

Let me ask you... if Biden IS guilty, how is this defense of him by attacking his accuser NOT obstruction? Not necessarily in the legal sense since few of us are lawyers (Owl is) but in the same context of your 'you can't obstruct' above?

SO, based on your own assertion, Biden's testimony, an investigation into him IS directly pertinent to the outcome

Regardless of any guilt of the Biden's, I would presume that does not afford our president the right to "break the law" to prove his guilt.

Provide a link to the statute he broke.

I put it in quotes for a reason. Move along.

(01-28-2020 01:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 01:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Arguing out of both sides of your mouth once again.

There is ZERO evidence that a crime was committed. Zero evidence that Ukraine knew that they needed to do something to get a visit or aid from Trump. Zero. What you have is suspicion (which may be proven but hasn't been) that he wanted to, but no proof that he did. He may have even asked people to, but it did not happen. That's LITERALLY the best you have... that he WANTED to commit a crime, but was somehow or for some reason, prevented from doing so.

You are so convinced that it did that you're starting with that presumption, and then everything else falls from there.

THAT is your (and the left's) problem here. You start with a crime that you can't seem to prove, no matter what Bolton says... unless he says... yes, I told Ukraine do this or no weapons.... meaning HE would have broken the law on Trump's orders.

I doubt that's going to be the case

By many an expert analysis, there doesn't have to be a crime to be impeached and/or removed. There were no federal laws when the impeachment clause was added to the Constitution. Additionally, bribery is clearly spelled out in one of the articles IIRC.

http://theconversation.com/does-impeachm...ion-130354

A distinction without a difference. Where I come from, Bribery BY a public official is a crime.... and you have zero factual evidence of it because you don't have anyone in Ukraine saying nor any actions by Ukraine suggesting that they were bribed.

What you have (as I've said and you simply dance around) is that you allege that Trump WANTED this and may have even told some people that he wanted this...

That's not Obstruction nor Bribery, and that is what you've charged him with.

What you MEAN is 'Orange Man Bad' and you're trying to find an excuse to remove him in spite of any evidence or lack thereof.

IF/WHEN you get Ukraine officials saying they knew that they needed to do something for Trump in order to get the aid they were promised by the US, THEN you will have something. Unless that's what any of these witnesses are going to say... that they personally delivered an illegal message to Ukraine... then you've got nothing

If he didn't assert any privilege, then he certainly didn't obstruct Congress... at least not any more than Bolton, Pelosi and Biden said they would.
You claim he 'instructed' people not to comply, but you can't 'instruct' someone to break the law... so either he didn't instruct anyone, or they didn't break the law by agreeing with him not to testify.

Keep spinning, but remember to spot the wall so you don't get dizzy.

(01-29-2020 01:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If he didn't assert any privilege, then he certainly didn't obstruct Congress... at least not any more than Bolton, Pelosi and Biden said they would.
You claim he 'instructed' people not to comply, but you can't 'instruct' someone to break the law... so either he didn't instruct anyone, or they didn't break the law by agreeing with him not to testify.

Keep spinning, but remember to spot the wall so you don't get dizzy.

Dude, just end the nonsense please. Nobody is spinning anything. We're both just presenting our thoughts on a matter that the public and even the experts are pretty much split 50/50 on. And we're dealing with a pretty much unprecedented event to boot.

And we all know trump. He's been in the public light for decades now and has always but himself first in everything he does. It's only logical for many to assume that he did that here, especially when so many testified to that under oath in the house inquiry. So it's certainly not a stretch for me to feel that way.

LOL... okay, this is funny

The left's secret weapon can't even be in the Senate Chambers... because he's wearing a felon ankle monitor!