Here is my question to Senate Repubs

[bigrebnc1775]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

Repeat after me
President Donald J. Trump, do this until he's out of office on Jan. 2025
No matter of whining it's not fair I don't like the orange man will not work

 

[berg80]

So the rest of the news media was helpless against big bad Fox.

What Faux did was essentially to bring Murdoch's tabloid style of "journalism" to TV. It's infotainment, not serious reporting. Any network that uses a total nutball like Joe DiGenova and his batshyte crazy wife as regular guests has zero credibility.

 

[Cellblock2429]

So the rest of the news media was helpless against big bad Fox.

What Faux did was essentially to bring Murdoch's tabloid style of "journalism" to TV. It's infotainment, not serious reporting. Any network that uses a total nutball like Joe DiGenova and his batshyte crazy wife as regular guests has zero credibility.

/—-/ Again that’s just your bias. You can’t stand having another point of view out there contradicting the LSM. And tell us about batshyt crazy Donna Brazile as a Fox contributor.

 

[Oldstyle]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

Never took Civics...did you, Berg? We have a system that allocates power to 3 branches of government. The Executive Branch is protected from political attacks by the Legislative Branch through the right of Executive Privilege. Trump is doing nothing that Barack Obama and Bill Clinton (to name just a few Presidents!) have done. It ISN'T obstruction of justice...it's obstruction of unconstitutional demands by the Legislative Branch!

 

[berg80]

So the rest of the news media was helpless against big bad Fox.

What Faux did was essentially to bring Murdoch's tabloid style of "journalism" to TV. It's infotainment, not serious reporting. Any network that uses a total nutball like Joe DiGenova and his batshyte crazy wife as regular guests has zero credibility.

/—-/ Again that’s just your bias. You can’t stand having another point of view out there contradicting the LSM. And tell us about batshyt crazy Donna Brazile as a Fox contributor.

If all Faux did was present a point of view I'd have no issue with them. CNN and MSNBC certainly have an editorial point of view. Many media outlets do. The difference being Faux actively, purposely, misinforms its audience. They do so overtly and subtly. The evidence of this fact is splashed all over this message board every day. Sometimes the crap they spew is so egregiously BS they are forced to retract it.
UPDATE 1-Lawsuit against Fox News over retracted Seth Rich story is revived
Most of the time they get away with it, leaving the misinformation to circulate around the right wing echo chamber until it is adopted as truth..............when it is anything but.

 

[Cellblock2429]

So the rest of the news media was helpless against big bad Fox.

What Faux did was essentially to bring Murdoch's tabloid style of "journalism" to TV. It's infotainment, not serious reporting. Any network that uses a total nutball like Joe DiGenova and his batshyte crazy wife as regular guests has zero credibility.

/—-/ Again that’s just your bias. You can’t stand having another point of view out there contradicting the LSM. And tell us about batshyt crazy Donna Brazile as a Fox contributor.

If all Faux did was present a point of view I'd have no issue with them. CNN and MSNBC certainly have an editorial point of view. Many media outlets do. The difference being Faux actively, purposely, misinforms its audience. They do so overtly and subtly. The evidence of this fact is splashed all over this message board every day. Sometimes the crap they spew is so egregiously BS they are forced to retract it.
UPDATE 1-Lawsuit against Fox News over retracted Seth Rich story is revived
Most of the time they get away with it, leaving the misinformation to circulate around the right wing echo chamber until it is adopted as truth..............when it is anything but.

/----/ "Faux actively, purposely, misinforms its audience.'
You can't prove any of that. And all news outlets get sued from time to time and have to retract stories. You're shooting blanks.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So the rest of the news media was helpless against big bad Fox.

What Faux did was essentially to bring Murdoch's tabloid style of "journalism" to TV. It's infotainment, not serious reporting. Any network that uses a total nutball like Joe DiGenova and his batshyte crazy wife as regular guests has zero credibility.

Given the fact they are the number one cable news network, that's what gives them credibility. Yeah......I know......you think everybody else is wrong except you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lol, the republicans are WAAAY past that point kiddo. These last few days they've been admitting he did it, and even admitting it's wrong. Their new line is it's not an impeachable crime.

You funny mans.

It's well within Trump's authority to request aid with an investigation. Biden himself had a hand in the treaty.

Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

The phrase you seem unable to understand is "for personal benefit".

Look that up and get back to me.

Good luck in the Senate.

99 percent of the demrat case is hearsay, opinion and hot air. None of which will make it to the senate floor. What most of the so called witnesses said in hearings and what being reported by so called press are two different tales.

That is an outdated talking point dismantled by the testimony given during the Intel Committee hearings. It's origins are found in the efforts to discredit the whistleblower complaint. But the info contained in the complaint has been fully corroborated. We know what happened, when it happened, who was involved in what happened, and who knew about what happened.
However, there is more first hand testimony that could be given were it not for the Obstructionist-in-Chief's refusal to allow people like Bolton to testify. Which is why your erroneous assertion has more than a tinge of irony in it. The right wing complains about a lack of first hand accounts of events while the Orange Turd prevents them from being given.

You commies are all alike. You have this clown show where only the Democrats get to pick and choose who will testify, not allowing one person by the Republicans. They are going to base this impeachment on what their witnesses said. And as heavily tilted to the left as this is, you're still going to complain because they didn't get everything they wanted.

How about giving us one thing that we want? Oh........can't do that. Then there would be an ounce of fairness involved, and Democrats can't allow fair.

You have zero right to complain about Trump using executive privilege.

 

[Indeependent]

So the rest of the news media was helpless against big bad Fox.

What Faux did was essentially to bring Murdoch's tabloid style of "journalism" to TV. It's infotainment, not serious reporting. Any network that uses a total nutball like Joe DiGenova and his batshyte crazy wife as regular guests has zero credibility.

Do you think CNN and MSNBC are sources of objective news?

 

[berg80]

Trump is doing nothing that Barack Obama and Bill Clinton (to name just a few Presidents!) have done.

That is just plain factually inaccurate. No president has ever made the non-existent claim of blanket privilege in order to justify obstructing a congressional investigation before Trump.

 

[Care4all]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

You can't charge a President with obstruction when he exercises his Executive Privilege outlined in the Constitution. The commies in the House do not run the entire government, and get what they want by demands.

But he didn't 'exercise' executive privilege Ray... exercising executive privilege requires the person subpoenaed showing up for the hearing, the President's formal request of executive privilege being in place, and then when questions are asked of the witness, they HAVE TO BE ANSWERED HONESTLY, unless they involve executive privileged things, of which the White House Lawyer sitting near the witness in the hearing objects, and calls executive privilege...

like eric holder, he went before congress, answered lots of questions, but certain things, he called executive privilege on... of which republicans still charged Holder with obstruction of Congress...

all other questions have to be answered...

What this president is claiming is something HE MADE UP, called BLANKET IMMUNITY, saying NONE of the executive branch or administration EVER has to comply with subpoenas of Congress to testify....AND none of the subpoenas for documents of OUR GOVT can be turned over, simply because this wanna be king says so?

DO YOU understand HOW DANGEROUS that is to our Democracy? HOW it breaks the CONSTITUTION regarding equal branches of government and the critical importance of those equal branches, in order to keep us a democratic republic??

Ray, this is serious.... not partisan if you spend one nano second thinking about the precedent and consequences of Trump's overreaching of power. now, and for all future presidents?

 

[berg80]

So the rest of the news media was helpless against big bad Fox.

What Faux did was essentially to bring Murdoch's tabloid style of "journalism" to TV. It's infotainment, not serious reporting. Any network that uses a total nutball like Joe DiGenova and his batshyte crazy wife as regular guests has zero credibility.

/—-/ Again that’s just your bias. You can’t stand having another point of view out there contradicting the LSM. And tell us about batshyt crazy Donna Brazile as a Fox contributor.

If all Faux did was present a point of view I'd have no issue with them. CNN and MSNBC certainly have an editorial point of view. Many media outlets do. The difference being Faux actively, purposely, misinforms its audience. They do so overtly and subtly. The evidence of this fact is splashed all over this message board every day. Sometimes the crap they spew is so egregiously BS they are forced to retract it.
UPDATE 1-Lawsuit against Fox News over retracted Seth Rich story is revived
Most of the time they get away with it, leaving the misinformation to circulate around the right wing echo chamber until it is adopted as truth..............when it is anything but.

/----/ "Faux actively, purposely, misinforms its audience.'
You can't prove any of that. And all news outlets get sued from time to time and have to retract stories. You're shooting blanks.
View attachment 291395

Actually, I can. The lies and misinformation Faux broadcasts is documented every day.
Fox’s alternate reality after Wednesday's devastating impeachment testimony

In anticipation of your reflexive attack on MM I really must insist that you actually refute what is contained in the article rather than make baseless accusations about the source.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Members of the POT (party of Trump) and their right wing media cohorts are free to express their opinion that the impeachment inquiry is a sham. But those allegations don't change the constitutional authority given to the House committees to lawfully conduct it. So riddle me this.
We know for an absolute certainty Trump has obstructed the inquiry by refusing to release requested documents and by ordering that subpoenaed witnesses not testify. Therefore, we know one of the articles of impeachment will include a charge of obstruction.
Senate Repubs can disingenuously claim the extortion of Ukraine does not, in their minds, rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But how will they get around the fact Trump has obstructed the inquiry?

As an aside, it should be noted the Trump admin may open itself up to the commission of another impeachable offense. The hypocritical Trump lackey known as Lindsey Graham has requested from the State Dept. documents pertaining to Joe Biden's activities with respect to the US government's demands the corrupt prosecutor Shokin be removed from office because he refused to prosecute cases of corruption in Ukraine. If the admin acquiesces to this request while blocking the release of documents sought by the House Intel Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry it runs the risk of being charged with selectively releasing documents for investigations it favors. Representing yet another abuse of power.

You can't charge a President with obstruction when he exercises his Executive Privilege outlined in the Constitution. The commies in the House do not run the entire government, and get what they want by demands.

But he didn't 'exercise' executive privilege Ray... exercising executive privilege requires the person subpoenaed showing up for the hearing, the President's formal request of executive privilege being in place, and then when questions are asked of the witness, they HAVE TO BE ANSWERED HONESTLY, unless they involve executive privileged things, of which the White House Lawyer sitting near the witness in the hearing objects, and calls executive privilege...

like eric holder, he went before congress, answered lots of questions, but certain things, he called executive privilege on... of which republicans still charged Holder with obstruction of Congress...

all other questions have to be answered...

What this president is claiming is something HE MADE UP, called BLANKET IMMUNITY, saying NONE of the executive branch or administration EVER has to comply with subpoenas of Congress to testify....AND none of the subpoenas for documents of OUR GOVT can be turned over, simply because this wanna be king says so?

DO YOU understand HOW DANGEROUS that is to our Democracy? HOW it breaks the CONSTITUTION regarding equal branches of government and the critical importance of those equal branches, in order to keep us a democratic republic??

Ray, this is serious.... not partisan if you spend one nano second thinking about the precedent and consequences of Trump's overreaching of power. now, and for all future presidents?

The only thing the Democrats want these witnesses for is to try and get them caught in a perjury trap, or get them to refuse to answer certain questions because of it's executive content. Then the Democrats will run around on MSM claiming Trump's people are hiding something. It's just more dog and pony show for them.

Yes, it is executive privilege, especially when it's nothing more than another commie witch hunt which this is. There is nothing impeachable if a President withholds money for a short time. Other Presidents have done the same. Even if there was a quid pro quo, it's not illegal. Joe Biden did that and admitted so on record. There is no impeachable offense by our President asking a foreign leader to look into something; he never once used the word "investigation." And bribery is not asking a favor. A favor is an act of friendliness and good will without expectation of anything in return.

So there is nothing Trump did in that phone call or afterwards that is an impeachable offense. The charges made by the commies are all made up. That's a good enough reason for Trump to stop them from trying to get his people. If they had any real charges, that might be one thing. But like the Russia investigation, like the Kavanugh hearing, it's nothing more than another attempt to put Trump in a bad light for political purposes only.

 

[Nostra]

The Democrats will never see 67 Senate votes on this matter.

I tend to agree. My question is what mechanism will Repubs use for not voting for the article regarding obstruction? Whether they feel the extortion of Ukraine merits impeachment or not Don is guilty of obstruction........it's a black and white distinction.

1 no evidence
2 the witnesses said "no quid pro quo"
3 the Ukrain president said to pressure

Weeks worth of evidence
Everybody said "quid pro quo".
Ukrainian president needed his military aid.

Lies.

Facts.

It's ok though, I know you tRumplings can't tell the difference

Lies.

 

[Cellblock2429]

So the rest of the news media was helpless against big bad Fox.

What Faux did was essentially to bring Murdoch's tabloid style of "journalism" to TV. It's infotainment, not serious reporting. Any network that uses a total nutball like Joe DiGenova and his batshyte crazy wife as regular guests has zero credibility.

/—-/ Again that’s just your bias. You can’t stand having another point of view out there contradicting the LSM. And tell us about batshyt crazy Donna Brazile as a Fox contributor.

If all Faux did was present a point of view I'd have no issue with them. CNN and MSNBC certainly have an editorial point of view. Many media outlets do. The difference being Faux actively, purposely, misinforms its audience. They do so overtly and subtly. The evidence of this fact is splashed all over this message board every day. Sometimes the crap they spew is so egregiously BS they are forced to retract it.
UPDATE 1-Lawsuit against Fox News over retracted Seth Rich story is revived
Most of the time they get away with it, leaving the misinformation to circulate around the right wing echo chamber until it is adopted as truth..............when it is anything but.

/----/ "Faux actively, purposely, misinforms its audience.'
You can't prove any of that. And all news outlets get sued from time to time and have to retract stories. You're shooting blanks.
View attachment 291395

Actually, I can. The lies and misinformation Faux broadcasts is documented every day.
Fox’s alternate reality after Wednesday's devastating impeachment testimony

In anticipation of your reflexive attack on MM I really must insist that you actually refute what is contained in the article rather than make baseless accusations about the source.

/——/ All you have is opinion, which is fine. Nothing wrong with that. If you don’t like a news outlet. Don’t watch it. I don’t like CNN, do guess what? I don’t watch it or blast people who do.

 

[Cellblock2429]

So the rest of the news media was helpless against big bad Fox.

What Faux did was essentially to bring Murdoch's tabloid style of "journalism" to TV. It's infotainment, not serious reporting. Any network that uses a total nutball like Joe DiGenova and his batshyte crazy wife as regular guests has zero credibility.

Do you think CNN and MSNBC are sources of objective news?

/—-/ The only reason I watch CNBC is for the stock reports. I check my app every morning for the futures. And I get their alerts about earnings reports and corporate shake ups. I have no reason to watch CNN, but anyone else is welcome to. If you don’t like an news outlet, don’t watch. Leave everyone else alone.

 

[Care4all]

The only thing the Democrats want these witnesses for is to try and get them caught in a perjury trap, or get them to refuse to answer certain questions because of it's executive content. Then the Democrats will run around on MSM claiming Trump's people are hiding something. It's just more dog and pony show for them.

are you actually claiming they are NOT hiding something that is relevant to this inquiry?

 

[Care4all]

Yes, it is executive privilege, especially when it's nothing more than another commie witch hunt which this is. There is nothing impeachable if a President withholds money for a short time. Other Presidents have done the same. Even if there was a quid pro quo, it's not illegal. Joe Biden did that and admitted so on record. There is no impeachable offense by our President asking a foreign leader to look into something; he never once used the word "investigation." And bribery is not asking a favor. A favor is an act of friendliness and good will without expectation of anything in return.

How can it be a witch hunt, when it has been proven? And confessed to?

 

[Cellblock2429]

The only thing the Democrats want these witnesses for is to try and get them caught in a perjury trap, or get them to refuse to answer certain questions because of it's executive content. Then the Democrats will run around on MSM claiming Trump's people are hiding something. It's just more dog and pony show for them.

are you actually claiming they are NOT hiding something that is relevant to this inquiry?

/—-/ I’d like to see how quickly you’d testify to a bunch who made it their mission to destroy you, especially if you were under no legal obligation to do so.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Yes, it is executive privilege, especially when it's nothing more than another commie witch hunt which this is. There is nothing impeachable if a President withholds money for a short time. Other Presidents have done the same. Even if there was a quid pro quo, it's not illegal. Joe Biden did that and admitted so on record. There is no impeachable offense by our President asking a foreign leader to look into something; he never once used the word "investigation." And bribery is not asking a favor. A favor is an act of friendliness and good will without expectation of anything in return.

How can it be a witch hunt, when it has been proven? And confessed to?

/—-/ Hearsay and opinion isn’t proof.