-
Yeah yeah... But your argument thus far is non existent on facts. Just opinion and claims that anyone doesn't agree with you doesn't know the facts. What facts am I missing?
Of course I haven't watched all the hearings. But neither have you.... -
@WS32119 said in US Politics:
Wondering if anyone else is watching the hearings. It’s pretty obvious that trump is guilty of using his office for personal political gain. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
It’s extraordinary. Beyond the pale-level corruption. Only a lowlife like Trump.
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:
@WS32119 said in US Politics:
Wondering if anyone else is watching the hearings. It’s pretty obvious that trump is guilty of using his office for personal political gain. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
It’s extraordinary. Beyond the pale-level corruption. Only a lowlife like Trump.
Where did I say that Biden is the answer? Your assumption that I’m a democrat shows your bias
-
You’re projecting. I didn’t assume anything, aside from the obvious. Trump is hardly unique in using the power of the White House to influence, and to deny this is the height of naivete. And what Biden is caught on tape admitting goes to the very heart of this dumbass impeachment hearing in the first place. Although that’s not quite true, it’s kabuki. This “impeachment hearing” started the day the Obama administration interfered in the 2016 election to spy on Candidate Trump. Everything the Dems accuse & charge Trump of doing, they are the ones who are in-fact guilty. It’s all projection.
-
-
Impeachment is a losing issue for Dems among independents in swing states.
I think Pelosi should either -- move to censure or
- try some maneuvers to delay impeachment (for example, adopt a resolution saying they need to wait for the courts to decide on subpoenas) to have it hanging over Trump's head.
Far left base won't like it, but Dems can use media to sell it to them.
I still think Biden is the only one who can beat Trump in the swing states and has a shot of actually winning the primary. Opening up his Ukraine ventures in a Senate trial, forcing him to appear for testimony, is NOT going to help him.
-
@Frank It's starting to look like this is turning into a win-win for Trump. Some seriously dodgy stuff with this Hunter character and China too....if they hadn't decided to invent an issue with this phone call then Hunter might not have been looked at seriously. Is Schiff a covert republican or just functionally retarded?
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:
You’re projecting. I didn’t assume anything, aside from the obvious. Trump is hardly unique in using the power of the White House to influence, and to deny this is the height of naivete. And what Biden is caught on tape admitting goes to the very heart of this dumbass impeachment hearing in the first place. Although that’s not quite true, it’s kabuki. This “impeachment hearing” started the day the Obama administration interfered in the 2016 election to spy on Candidate Trump. Everything the Dems accuse & charge Trump of doing, they are the ones who are in-fact guilty. It’s all projection.
Got a date that goes with that day?
Got any hard evidence?
Anyone been charged?Just curious.
If it is your opinion or you support an opinion you have read, that's fine. But don't state it as a fact without proof. Your name isn't Donald and continuously saying something doesn't change it to being true. -
Who paid for the Steele dossier, Crucial? Who paid for tales of the phantom pee-tape? Sit back and grab the popcorn. The Inspector General’s report is due to drop any day...
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:
Who paid for the Steele dossier, Crucial? Who paid for tales of the phantom pee-tape? Sit back and grab the popcorn. The Inspector General’s report is due to drop any day...
Not the Obama administration anyway.
Steele dossier was paid for by three different and disparate groups as one picked up from the other. Steele himself declares that he didn't know who was paying (apart from Fusion).So, back to my question. Or are happy to declare that it is just your opinion.
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:
Who paid for the Steele dossier, Crucial? Who paid for tales of the phantom pee-tape? Sit back and grab the popcorn. The Inspector General’s report is due to drop any day...
I am skeptical anything much will come of the Horowitz investigation beyond a few bad apples being identified.
I think the Durham investigation into the origins of the information the CIA gave to the FBI to initiate the counter-intelligence investigation is possibly more interesting. Durham is taking his 3rd trip to Italy to talk to intelligence services over there and is looking into Stefan Halper.
All speculation at this stage.
-
If corroborated then it certainly should be investigated.
Potential corruption involving Hunter Biden has already been investigated by both the US State Department (who declared no conflict of interest) and Ukraine (who have no link of Bidens involvement in the Burisma investigations).
The (totally different) impeachment investigation is to establish whetherTrump tried to link the two for personal/ political gain which is against his oath of office.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
If corroborated then it certainly should be investigated.
Potential corruption involving Hunter Biden has already been investigated by both the US State Department (who declared no conflict of interest) and Ukraine (who have no link of Bidens involvement in the Burisma investigations).
The (totally different) impeachment investigation is to establish whetherTrump tried to link the two for personal/ political gain which is against his oath of office.
Lol... the state dept investigation is never going to cut it.
And impeachment investigation is only totally different whilst the Dems control the process, as soon as it hits the senate it will be front and centre, just where many, including myself, think it should be.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
If corroborated then it certainly should be investigated.
Potential corruption involving Hunter Biden has already been investigated by both the US State Department (who declared no conflict of interest) and Ukraine (who have no link of Bidens involvement in the Burisma investigations).
The (totally different) impeachment investigation is to establish whetherTrump tried to link the two for personal/ political gain which is against his oath of office.
Lol... the state dept investigation is never going to cut it.
And impeachment investigation is only totally different whilst the Dems control the process, as soon as it hits the senate it will be front and centre, just where many, including myself, think it should be.
You do understand the process I gather?
It has to be in the House first then the Senate. If it gets that far then your wish will be granted.
All this bullshit about the hearings being Dem controlled is no different to previous impeachment process.
I agree about the State Dept 'investigation into conflict of interest being not the strongest though. They don't even see conflict of interest with Ivanka.
There is a very thin line between favours and corruption. that's for sure. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
If corroborated then it certainly should be investigated.
Potential corruption involving Hunter Biden has already been investigated by both the US State Department (who declared no conflict of interest) and Ukraine (who have no link of Bidens involvement in the Burisma investigations).
The (totally different) impeachment investigation is to establish whetherTrump tried to link the two for personal/ political gain which is against his oath of office.
Lol... the state dept investigation is never going to cut it.
And impeachment investigation is only totally different whilst the Dems control the process, as soon as it hits the senate it will be front and centre, just where many, including myself, think it should be.
You do understand the process I gather?
It has to be in the House first then the Senate. If it gets that far then your wish will be granted.
All this bullshit about the hearings being Dem controlled is no different to previous impeachment process.
I agree about the State Dept 'investigation into conflict of interest being not the strongest though. They don't even see conflict of interest with Ivanka.
There is a very thin line between favours and corruption. that's for sure.I was meaning Bidens alleged corruption should be front and centre of this investigation. Not that these hearing happening now should be in the senate. My post wasnt clear.
I am getting there in understanding the process, havent made it a hobby though.
In previous impeachment investigations both sides could present witnesses, the minority were not shut down and cut off. It isnt that the Dems are controlling the process... although the House Intelligence committee running it is a first... has always been the Judiciary committee.. but Nadler is even more incompetent than Schiff... it is the HOW they are controlling the porcess. That isnt bullshit, it shows that the process is so partisan as to be a disaster.
Never before has the vote for an impeachment investigation been so partisan, and the only dissenters were Democrats.
Given that you dont like Trump, what is your dream scenario for this? I just cannot see any happy ending for Dems. Much is made of the fact that the process is political not criminal, dont these morons realise that people generally loathe politics.. and being guilty of a purely political crime in a political court will likely endear him to most?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
If corroborated then it certainly should be investigated.
Potential corruption involving Hunter Biden has already been investigated by both the US State Department (who declared no conflict of interest) and Ukraine (who have no link of Bidens involvement in the Burisma investigations).
The (totally different) impeachment investigation is to establish whetherTrump tried to link the two for personal/ political gain which is against his oath of office.
Lol... the state dept investigation is never going to cut it.
And impeachment investigation is only totally different whilst the Dems control the process, as soon as it hits the senate it will be front and centre, just where many, including myself, think it should be.
You do understand the process I gather?
It has to be in the House first then the Senate. If it gets that far then your wish will be granted.
All this bullshit about the hearings being Dem controlled is no different to previous impeachment process.
I agree about the State Dept 'investigation into conflict of interest being not the strongest though. They don't even see conflict of interest with Ivanka.
There is a very thin line between favours and corruption. that's for sure.I was meaning Bidens alleged corruption should be front and centre of this investigation. Not that these hearing happening now should be in the senate. My post wasnt clear.
I am getting there in understanding the process, havent made it a hobby though.
In previous impeachment investigations both sides could present witnesses, the minority were not shut down and cut off. It isnt that the Dems are controlling the process... although the House Intelligence committee running it is a first... has always been the Judiciary committee.. but Nadler is even more incompetent than Schiff... it is the HOW they are controlling the porcess. That isnt bullshit, it shows that the process is so partisan as to be a disaster.
Never before has the vote for an impeachment investigation been so partisan, and the only dissenters were Democrats.
Given that you dont like Trump, what is your dream scenario for this? I just cannot see any happy ending for Dems. Much is made of the fact that the process is political not criminal, dont these morons realise that people generally loathe politics.. and being guilty of a purely political crime in a political court will likely endear him to most?
You are confusing the investigations with the trial.
Investigation is at Reps level, trial at senate.Given that it is a public matter the investigations are held in an open forum where possible.
You don't run a defence at an investigation. That is merely to establish whether there are grounds to 'prosecute'. No different to most court cases.
I do agree that when you have a situation were the house is controlled by an opposition then the view is that things are simply political and I do agree that the Dems have been waiting for their chance to try and nail Trump on something. He presented them with that chance.This is how the Supreme Court describes the duty to investigate
It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function
There is no denying that of the many things the House could go about investigating and the time they could spend of impeachment investigations all over the place, they have saved their energy for Trump. However, that being said, if he did breach his oath of office then he should be accountable yes?
As to whether Biden's alleged corruption should be front and centre, no one has even said what this 'corruption' is let alone formed an accusation that can be investigated. Trump complains of witch hunts but his approach was a fishing expedition. If there is something there and Biden has broken the law then he should be accountable but that is separate to this investigation. It may have been a catalyst for Trump's behaviour but isn't a defence.
As for your last question, I don't have a dream scenario. I dislike Trump, not on grounds of political ideology but because he is a narcissistic liar. His actions have little personal effect on me except for the reinforcing of the terrible attitudes of the border control officials that I sometimes have to deal with.
Is this a 'political crime'? It would be a charge that has political motivation, so yes, he would get some sympathy from that. I doubt very much if the Dems would get more votes. Trumps approval ratings are steady through all of this and independents are even appearing to swing towards 'no impeachment'.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if they don't take this further. They have probably achieved whatever damage they thought they could. Trump's unhinged ranting emboldens their existing support and may turn off the few 'swing' voters they need to affect.
Don't forget that the whole Presidential election usually comes down to a couple of States. Trump managed to convince a few of those swing voters that his disruptive approach would bring them benefits and it will come down to whether he achieves that.
US Politics