Schumer's pipe dream, a trial with.....you know.....evidence.

[colfax_m]

Was Nixon defending himself when he refused to turn over evidence?

No, but guess who found him to be obstructing? Not the democrats in the House, and not the partisans who wanted him gone. Face it, Schiff could have gone the same route and compelled testimony, but instead let the clock dictate his actions. Neither he nor you have the standing to declare Trump to be obstructing.

Interesting. You think the court found Nixon guilty of obstructing? That’s not the case. SCOTUS merely ordered him to turn over the subpoenaed materials and Nixon complied after he lost the case. Nixon did exactly what you’re claiming Trump is entitled to do.

Now, Nixon was very likely going to be impeached for obstructing Congress, but never got the chance.

Ah, and therein is how it's supposed to happen. The legislative demands information from the executive, the executive refuses, it's taken to court and the court either compels the executive to comply or tells the legislative to pound sand. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE. Why? Because Schiff did not want to take the time or put in the effort to pursue it in court. That's the bottom line, so complaining that Trump is obstructing is worthless.

So I’ll ask again if you think Nixon was merely defending himself when he refused to produce evidence? And if not, what is different about Trump?

You’re setting a standard where the executive can refuse anything for any reason and any subpoena from the legislature will take years to be enforced. Is that the future you want for this government?

I think Nixon was defending himself and crossed the line into obstruction. What's different about Trump is that no court has weighed in on the legitimacy of what he is doing, and won't because the House democrats are more interested in a campaign issue than true justice.

As long as the courts say there are valid reasons for the executive to refuse a subpoena, that avenue HAS to remain open. Otherwise, we face a future where a Congressional committee cam simply demand anything they want for whatever reason they want and dig through it looking for dirt on the president. Is that the future you want, a democrat facing a hostile Republican House that demands documentation on every step he takes?

How did Nixon “cross the line” into obstruction? Where is that line?

A hostile Republican house demanding documentation on ever step the president takes? We’ve been there.

 

[colfax_m]

Hmm, Trump can make any claim he wants. Can we question him?

How are you going to determine if the whistleblower is “telling the truth” or not? Didn’t we already do that with testimony from witnesses?

Trump is innocent until proven guilty. I guess you missed that part. I guess you want to change the entire court system to get your wishes. No reason to cross-examine those who make accustations against others. How absurd can you be?

That would be true in a court of law, which this isn't. As it stands now, he's the only impeached president who's not been acquitted.

That's true, this isn't a court of law. It is a situation in which the handlers of the House inquiry are fair game, as well as the supposed ignition point, aka the WB, and the majority has a lot of leeway to shape it how they want it shaped. IOW, they can totally ignore Schumer's bleating about how they should cover for the sloppy House work.

They keep claiming the Dims are following due process, and then making excuses for them when they clearly aren't.

They excuse the democrats from following due process because "it's a political, not criminal" process, then insist the Republicans treat it like a criminal, not political, process.

Democrats have provided Trump more due process than any criminal would ever get.

 

[Faun]

Thats an impressive indictment was of trump

I dont agree with you on the alleged facts but its obviously real to you

The problem is that your side has been crying wolf since the day trump was elected and dems let out a primal scream not heard since Abraham Lincoln was elected

You simply cant accept the results of the 2016 election

Does this mean Clinton didn't really lie under oath since Republicans had been crying wolf for 4 years until they discovered Monica Lewinsky?

Thats fair

But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election

The same is likely to happen this time as well. Voters don't like one party trying so hard to get rid of a sitting president.

So you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

Not very likely, but you can always hope. By same thing, obviously, I expect the president's popularity to increase, which likely will ensure victory next year, as the democrats have yet to find a coherent candidate, much less a message. Running on "We failed to get rid of him" just doesn't sound like a winning message.

But that's what you said. You said, "the same is likely to happen this time as well," and Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton.

 

[colfax_m]

What effect does any of that information have on the case for or against Trump?

Quite a bit, if it is revealed that Schiff mishandled the whole thing, lied about it, and presented tainted evidence. Look, we're not prosecuting Jaywalking here, the democrats have broadcast their intention to unseat the president since before he was inaugurated, so they should be very careful to avoid the very thing they're doing right now, which is to present a weak case built largely on supposition, impression and opinion, and totally partisan. That means dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

Tainted evidence? The whistleblower complaint isn’t even being used as evidence. It was used as a map of where to find the evidence.

Evidence gathered illegally, for example, is tainted. The WB was being touted as a critical witness, and as such, needs to testify. We need to know what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint for him, who he coordinated with, etc. Defense attorneys frequently get their clients off the hook by getting evidence thrown out because it was gathered illegally. And, if you want to complain that this isn't a criminal proceeding but a political one, then Trump and the Republicans also have more leeway to conduct business as they wish, and your complaining that he's obstructing goes nowhere until a court says he is.

The whistleblower complaint is not being used as evidence.

And the testimony of Trump's associates isn't either, yet you seem very interested in the Senate getting it. Like I said, if this guy is so critical to the whole shebang, get him on the stand, find out what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint, who he coordinated with, etc. Why would you on the one hand insist on total transparency from the White House while simultaneously we totally ignore the supposed ignition point of the whole impeachment?

My belief is that the WB was just a pretext, that impeachment was in the works from the moment the democrats assumed control of the House (just looking for an excuse), and a full accounting of his/her actions would reveal just that, along with coordination with Schiff's office, revealing Schiff to be less an investigator and more an inquisitor. He's being hidden away for pure partisan political gain.

The testimony heard before the committee is being used as evidence against him.

The whistleblower complaint was only critical at identifying where the evidence was. It’s analogous to a person who calls the police saying they heard a gunshot. The police arrive to see a man standing over a body with a gun in their hand. Is the caller the “accuser” here? They were critical to identifying where to look for the crime but not critical in the least at any part of a conviction.

Here’s how I see Republicans making this process so disappointing. They don’t want to hear from sources closest to the president’s actions. They do want to hear sources furthest away. That’s not a group of people interested in the truth.

 

[Mac-7]

Does this mean Clinton didn't really lie under oath since Republicans had been crying wolf for 4 years until they discovered Monica Lewinsky?

Thats fair

But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election

The same is likely to happen this time as well. Voters don't like one party trying so hard to get rid of a sitting president.

So you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

Not very likely, but you can always hope. By same thing, obviously, I expect the president's popularity to increase, which likely will ensure victory next year, as the democrats have yet to find a coherent candidate, much less a message. Running on "We failed to get rid of him" just doesn't sound like a winning message.

But that's what you said. You said, "the same is likely to happen this time as well," and Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton.

My prediction is no change of hands at the white house or senate and house in 2020

 

[Faun]

Thats an impressive indictment was of trump

I dont agree with you on the alleged facts but its obviously real to you

The problem is that your side has been crying wolf since the day trump was elected and dems let out a primal scream not heard since Abraham Lincoln was elected

You simply cant accept the results of the 2016 election

Does this mean Clinton didn't really lie under oath since Republicans had been crying wolf for 4 years until they discovered Monica Lewinsky?

Thats fair

But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election

The same is likely to happen this time as well. Voters don't like one party trying so hard to get rid of a sitting president.

So you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

No

I’m saying that the clinton impeachment backfired on the repubs

Well, yes, you did. You said....

"But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election"​

You were clearly talking about the election, not poll numbers. You only switched to poll numbers after I pointed out Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton. The reality is, the impeachment had no discernible effect on the election.

 

[Faun]

There's no whistleblower? Yet everything in his/her complaint has been verified. Pelosi was against impeachment until after the WB became public. The call was a quid pro quo.

Do not take that tin foil hat off under any circumstances. I don't think you could handle the shock of what reality actually is.

More lies. The whistleblower's complaint was a pile of lies.

LOL

Lying fucking moron, almost everything in the whistleblower's complaint was confirmed in the House impeachment hearings.

Spare us your pathetic lying.

I've already posted a number of times about the invalid claims in his complaint.

LOLOL

As if your hollow denials carry any weight.

You're the lying fucking moron who actually just posted the impeached Trump does NOT have the Constitutional right to face his accuser AFTER claiming he does.

Are you saying I'm lying about posting examples of invalid whistleblower claims?

No, I'm saying your hollow denials that most of the whistleblower's complaint were proven in the hearings is a lie because they were. I have no doubt you posted that lie before.

 

[AntonToo]

You are a fucking moron consitently posting stupid nonsense.

Trump held up congressionally approved millitary aid to Ukraine and he did so illegally, without a valid reason, releasing only after Congress opened investigations.

NOTHING you just said re. orginal approval by Trump administration for lethal aid refutes that fact in any way, it is wholly IRRELAVANT to the issue.

According to YOU, it was released:

"Trump held up congressionally aproved millitary aid and he did so illegally and without a valid reason, releasing only after Congress opened investigations."

It was never illegal anyway, as the ADMINISTRATIVE branch can delay it for a FOREIGN POLICY reason, Obama did it, so did Clinton and Bush.

Drop your partisanship hate will be helpful.....

Do you seriously not get why pointing to the release of aid AFTER THE DRUG DEAL WAS ALREADY BUSTED is not a rational defense?

At that point there was NO OPTION for Trump to keep the illegal hold on the aid and all Trump would be doing is burying himself deeper by not releasing it ASAP!

You don't need to be a lefty to understand this simple concept, it has nothing to do with partisanship, it has to with having a head on your shoulders.

You keep claiming the "hold" was illegal, you have yet to SHOW that it is illegal. Many Presidents have done this many times in American history, which is why I doubt your claim.

It is obvious.

We have OMB staff quitting over this hold up and administration still has not provided any valid reason.

If there actually was one they OF COURSE would be providing it instead of defying congressional requests for documents and letting Trump get impeached.

Just use your head.

Then you have no case, since you didn't answer my request for backing up your claim that it was illegal.

You are blowing a lot of B.S. here.

I made plenty of case. But if you are asking specifically about statutory restrictions on a President holding up aid:


Impoundment Control Act, passed after Nixon held up apropriated funds, states:

That a deferral of funds is only allowable in a few limited circumstances

Deferrals shall be permissible only—

(1) to provide for contingencies; - NOPE

(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or - NOPE

(3) as specifically provided by law. - NOPE

No officer or employee of the United States may defer any budget authority for any other purpose.

Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Schumer Declared If the GOP Plays By Same Rules The House Dems Did, They're 'Engaged In A Cover Up'

Pure bullshit. Name just ONE relavant witness Democrats did not want to interview.

Republicans want to to have a testimony of everyone EXCEPT ANYONE DIRECTLY INVOLVED with the Ukrainian drug deal Trump is accused of.

You first name one relevant witness at the inquiry? GO__________

I already did.

Mulveney who held up the money at Trump’s direction and was at the meetings with Sondland that laid out quid-pro-quo to Ukrainians and even more crucially Jiuliani who Trump referred everyone to deal with, from Sondland to Zelensky.

You're holding your hopes on Sondland who changed his testimony and admitted he assumed that was what was wanted. Even after the president directly told he wanted nothing in return just do the right thing. Them the very man who Sondland said he discussed the deal said it never happened.
Exclusive: Top Ukraine Official Andriy Yermak Casts Doubt on Key Impeachment Testimony

 

[bripat9643]

It's in the fucking constitution, asshole. If anyone is engaging in intimidation and diversion, it's Adolph Schiffler and the rest of the Dims. That's all they have. No facts.

Lying fucking moron, it is not in the Constitution.

Wrong, asshole:

Article [VI] (Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

LOLOL

Are you ever not a lying fucking moron?

Ever??

Lying fucking moron, did you bother to read what YOU posted...??

"In all criminal prosecutions..."​

And as you said earlier...

It's not a legal trial, dumbass.

Like I said, lying fucking moron, your bullshit is not in the Constitution.

The funniest part is that YOU proved it's not.

Yes, we know the Dims can run a Soviet style show trial and not follow due process if they want. Then they have no basis for complaining when the Republicans don't allow them to call witnesses.

Um, lying fucking moron, Republicans are tasked with running this trial, not Democrats.

But thanks for admitting Republicans will be running a "Soviet style show trial."

ROFL! What a douchebag. You have said time and time again that this is a political process, not a legal process, whenever it was pointed out that they aren't following due process. Now, all of a sudden, you're bleating pathetically about due process.

Why should anyone give a rats ass about your whining?

 

[bripat9643]

More lies. The whistleblower's complaint was a pile of lies.

LOL

Lying fucking moron, almost everything in the whistleblower's complaint was confirmed in the House impeachment hearings.

Spare us your pathetic lying.

I've already posted a number of times about the invalid claims in his complaint.

LOLOL

As if your hollow denials carry any weight.

You're the lying fucking moron who actually just posted the impeached Trump does NOT have the Constitutional right to face his accuser AFTER claiming he does.

Are you saying I'm lying about posting examples of invalid whistleblower claims?

No, I'm saying your hollow denials that most of the whistleblower's complaint were proven in the hearings is a lie because they were. I have no doubt you posted that lie before.

I posted the evidence, dumbfuck.

Are you claiming I didn't?

 

[Faun]

Thats fair

But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election

The same is likely to happen this time as well. Voters don't like one party trying so hard to get rid of a sitting president.

So you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

Not very likely, but you can always hope. By same thing, obviously, I expect the president's popularity to increase, which likely will ensure victory next year, as the democrats have yet to find a coherent candidate, much less a message. Running on "We failed to get rid of him" just doesn't sound like a winning message.

But that's what you said. You said, "the same is likely to happen this time as well," and Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton.

My prediction is no change of hands at the white house or senate and house in 2020

So?

Such predictions are meaningless. Especially this far out. I understand you're looking for some glimmer of hope following Trump getting impeached but the reality is, no one knows yet how this is going to play out.

 

[hadit]

No, but guess who found him to be obstructing? Not the democrats in the House, and not the partisans who wanted him gone. Face it, Schiff could have gone the same route and compelled testimony, but instead let the clock dictate his actions. Neither he nor you have the standing to declare Trump to be obstructing.

Interesting. You think the court found Nixon guilty of obstructing? That’s not the case. SCOTUS merely ordered him to turn over the subpoenaed materials and Nixon complied after he lost the case. Nixon did exactly what you’re claiming Trump is entitled to do.

Now, Nixon was very likely going to be impeached for obstructing Congress, but never got the chance.

Ah, and therein is how it's supposed to happen. The legislative demands information from the executive, the executive refuses, it's taken to court and the court either compels the executive to comply or tells the legislative to pound sand. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE. Why? Because Schiff did not want to take the time or put in the effort to pursue it in court. That's the bottom line, so complaining that Trump is obstructing is worthless.

So I’ll ask again if you think Nixon was merely defending himself when he refused to produce evidence? And if not, what is different about Trump?

You’re setting a standard where the executive can refuse anything for any reason and any subpoena from the legislature will take years to be enforced. Is that the future you want for this government?

I think Nixon was defending himself and crossed the line into obstruction. What's different about Trump is that no court has weighed in on the legitimacy of what he is doing, and won't because the House democrats are more interested in a campaign issue than true justice.

As long as the courts say there are valid reasons for the executive to refuse a subpoena, that avenue HAS to remain open. Otherwise, we face a future where a Congressional committee cam simply demand anything they want for whatever reason they want and dig through it looking for dirt on the president. Is that the future you want, a democrat facing a hostile Republican House that demands documentation on every step he takes?

How did Nixon “cross the line” into obstruction? Where is that line?

A hostile Republican house demanding documentation on ever step the president takes? We’ve been there.

1. Had he failed to comply after SCOTUS ordered him to, clearly he would have been obstructing. It could be argued that he didn't really obstruct when he complied with the order. The court has to determine where that line is in each case. It's not up to Congress who is demanding something, or the president who is resisting.
2. A Congress with unlimited power to compel the release of any and every document a committee chair demands? No, we've not had that.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump is innocent until proven guilty. I guess you missed that part. I guess you want to change the entire court system to get your wishes. No reason to cross-examine those who make accustations against others. How absurd can you be?

That would be true in a court of law, which this isn't. As it stands now, he's the only impeached president who's not been acquitted.

That's true, this isn't a court of law. It is a situation in which the handlers of the House inquiry are fair game, as well as the supposed ignition point, aka the WB, and the majority has a lot of leeway to shape it how they want it shaped. IOW, they can totally ignore Schumer's bleating about how they should cover for the sloppy House work.

They keep claiming the Dims are following due process, and then making excuses for them when they clearly aren't.

They excuse the democrats from following due process because "it's a political, not criminal" process, then insist the Republicans treat it like a criminal, not political, process.

Democrats have provided Trump more due process than any criminal would ever get.

Just another big fat lie in a long train of big fat lies.

 

[Faun]

LOL

Lying fucking moron, almost everything in the whistleblower's complaint was confirmed in the House impeachment hearings.

Spare us your pathetic lying.

I've already posted a number of times about the invalid claims in his complaint.

LOLOL

As if your hollow denials carry any weight.

You're the lying fucking moron who actually just posted the impeached Trump does NOT have the Constitutional right to face his accuser AFTER claiming he does.

Are you saying I'm lying about posting examples of invalid whistleblower claims?

No, I'm saying your hollow denials that most of the whistleblower's complaint were proven in the hearings is a lie because they were. I have no doubt you posted that lie before.

I posted the evidence, dumbfuck.

LOLOLOL

Like you posted the evidence that Trump has the Constitutional right to face his accuser, lying fucking moron?? After all, it's in the Bill of Rights, right???

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, they aren't

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

It's in the fucking constitution, asshole. If anyone is engaging in intimidation and diversion, it's Adolph Schiffler and the rest of the Dims. That's all they have. No facts.

Lying fucking moron, it is not in the Constitution.

We need to know about who he talked too and what they know

 

[bripat9643]

Spare us your pathetic lying.

I've already posted a number of times about the invalid claims in his complaint.

LOLOL

As if your hollow denials carry any weight.

You're the lying fucking moron who actually just posted the impeached Trump does NOT have the Constitutional right to face his accuser AFTER claiming he does.

Are you saying I'm lying about posting examples of invalid whistleblower claims?

No, I'm saying your hollow denials that most of the whistleblower's complaint were proven in the hearings is a lie because they were. I have no doubt you posted that lie before.

I posted the evidence, dumbfuck.

LOLOLOL

Like you posted the evidence that Trump has the Constitutional right to face his accuser, lying fucking moron?? After all, it's in the Bill of Rights, right???

The more extreme you attacks, the more we know you realize that you're wrong.

Due process is in the Constitution. I simply pointed out that Adolph Schiffler and the Dims aren't following it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

According to YOU, it was released:

"Trump held up congressionally aproved millitary aid and he did so illegally and without a valid reason, releasing only after Congress opened investigations."

It was never illegal anyway, as the ADMINISTRATIVE branch can delay it for a FOREIGN POLICY reason, Obama did it, so did Clinton and Bush.

Drop your partisanship hate will be helpful.....

Do you seriously not get why pointing to the release of aid AFTER THE DRUG DEAL WAS ALREADY BUSTED is not a rational defense?

At that point there was NO OPTION for Trump to keep the illegal hold on the aid and all Trump would be doing is burying himself deeper by not releasing it ASAP!

You don't need to be a lefty to understand this simple concept, it has nothing to do with partisanship, it has to with having a head on your shoulders.

You keep claiming the "hold" was illegal, you have yet to SHOW that it is illegal. Many Presidents have done this many times in American history, which is why I doubt your claim.

It is obvious.

We have OMB staff quitting over this hold up and administration still has not provided any valid reason.

If there actually was one they OF COURSE would be providing it instead of defying congressional requests for documents and letting Trump get impeached.

Just use your head.

Then you have no case, since you didn't answer my request for backing up your claim that it was illegal.

You are blowing a lot of B.S. here.

I made plenty of case. But if you are asking specifically about statutory restrictions on a President holding up aid:


Impoundment Control Act, passed after Nixon held up apropriated funds, states:

That a deferral of funds is only allowable in a few limited circumstances

Deferrals shall be permissible only—

(1) to provide for contingencies; - NOPE

(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or - NOPE

(3) as specifically provided by law. - NOPE

No officer or employee of the United States may defer any budget authority for any other purpose.

Trump’s Hold on Ukrainian Military Aid was Illegal

Bwahahahahaha, just as I expected, you have no idea how messed up your argument is, temporary holding of aid is a common practive as even Obama did that too.

OMB: Ukraine aid delay was consistent with law, past practice

Excerpt:

In the letter, OMB General Counsel Mark R. Paoletta said even with the temporary withholding, the Department of Defense was able to obligate about 84 percent of the $250 million before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

That’s more than the 79 percent of appropriated security funds for Ukraine that were obligated in fiscal 2016 in the last year of the Obama administration, the letter said. More recently, 83 percent of Ukraine security assistance was obligated in fiscal 2018 and 91 percent in fiscal 2017.

===========================

There was NO deferral, just a temporary hold is all it was.

It is your irrational partisan hate is why you and other historically TDS infected ignorant leftists are wrong.

 

[colfax_m]

Interesting. You think the court found Nixon guilty of obstructing? That’s not the case. SCOTUS merely ordered him to turn over the subpoenaed materials and Nixon complied after he lost the case. Nixon did exactly what you’re claiming Trump is entitled to do.

Now, Nixon was very likely going to be impeached for obstructing Congress, but never got the chance.

Ah, and therein is how it's supposed to happen. The legislative demands information from the executive, the executive refuses, it's taken to court and the court either compels the executive to comply or tells the legislative to pound sand. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE. Why? Because Schiff did not want to take the time or put in the effort to pursue it in court. That's the bottom line, so complaining that Trump is obstructing is worthless.

So I’ll ask again if you think Nixon was merely defending himself when he refused to produce evidence? And if not, what is different about Trump?

You’re setting a standard where the executive can refuse anything for any reason and any subpoena from the legislature will take years to be enforced. Is that the future you want for this government?

I think Nixon was defending himself and crossed the line into obstruction. What's different about Trump is that no court has weighed in on the legitimacy of what he is doing, and won't because the House democrats are more interested in a campaign issue than true justice.

As long as the courts say there are valid reasons for the executive to refuse a subpoena, that avenue HAS to remain open. Otherwise, we face a future where a Congressional committee cam simply demand anything they want for whatever reason they want and dig through it looking for dirt on the president. Is that the future you want, a democrat facing a hostile Republican House that demands documentation on every step he takes?

How did Nixon “cross the line” into obstruction? Where is that line?

A hostile Republican house demanding documentation on ever step the president takes? We’ve been there.

1. Had he failed to comply after SCOTUS ordered him to, clearly he would have been obstructing. It could be argued that he didn't really obstruct when he complied with the order. The court has to determine where that line is in each case. It's not up to Congress who is demanding something, or the president who is resisting.
2. A Congress with unlimited power to compel the release of any and every document a committee chair demands? No, we've not had that.

Earlier you had said that Nixon had been obstructing but seem to be backing away from that. I was asking your opinion as to why you initially said it. Have you changed your mind?

The court does not decide if the president is obstructing. They can’t. That’s not their job. If an average Joe is obstructing justice, they’re tried criminally for it but that’s not an option here. The president can only be held accountable by the legislature via impeachment process. It is therefore the sole responsibility of the legislature to decide if the president has crossed the line.

I don’t think Congress has unlimited power, but I don’t think they have zero power either. Trump isn’t holding up some subpoenas. He’s refusing EVERY subpoena. I don’t know exactly where the line is, but it’s definitely a ways back from where Trump has staked his position.

 

[hadit]

Does this mean Clinton didn't really lie under oath since Republicans had been crying wolf for 4 years until they discovered Monica Lewinsky?

Thats fair

But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election

The same is likely to happen this time as well. Voters don't like one party trying so hard to get rid of a sitting president.

So you're saying it's likely that Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate next year? Cool.

No

I’m saying that the clinton impeachment backfired on the repubs

Well, yes, you did. You said....

"But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election"​

You were clearly talking about the election, not poll numbers. You only switched to poll numbers after I pointed out Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton. The reality is, the impeachment had no discernible effect on the election.

Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,

Quite a bit, if it is revealed that Schiff mishandled the whole thing, lied about it, and presented tainted evidence. Look, we're not prosecuting Jaywalking here, the democrats have broadcast their intention to unseat the president since before he was inaugurated, so they should be very careful to avoid the very thing they're doing right now, which is to present a weak case built largely on supposition, impression and opinion, and totally partisan. That means dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

Tainted evidence? The whistleblower complaint isn’t even being used as evidence. It was used as a map of where to find the evidence.

Evidence gathered illegally, for example, is tainted. The WB was being touted as a critical witness, and as such, needs to testify. We need to know what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint for him, who he coordinated with, etc. Defense attorneys frequently get their clients off the hook by getting evidence thrown out because it was gathered illegally. And, if you want to complain that this isn't a criminal proceeding but a political one, then Trump and the Republicans also have more leeway to conduct business as they wish, and your complaining that he's obstructing goes nowhere until a court says he is.

The whistleblower complaint is not being used as evidence.

And the testimony of Trump's associates isn't either, yet you seem very interested in the Senate getting it. Like I said, if this guy is so critical to the whole shebang, get him on the stand, find out what he actually knew, when he knew it, who wrote his complaint, who he coordinated with, etc. Why would you on the one hand insist on total transparency from the White House while simultaneously we totally ignore the supposed ignition point of the whole impeachment?

My belief is that the WB was just a pretext, that impeachment was in the works from the moment the democrats assumed control of the House (just looking for an excuse), and a full accounting of his/her actions would reveal just that, along with coordination with Schiff's office, revealing Schiff to be less an investigator and more an inquisitor. He's being hidden away for pure partisan political gain.

The testimony heard before the committee is being used as evidence against him.

The whistleblower complaint was only critical at identifying where the evidence was. It’s analogous to a person who calls the police saying they heard a gunshot. The police arrive to see a man standing over a body with a gun in their hand. Is the caller the “accuser” here? They were critical to identifying where to look for the crime but not critical in the least at any part of a conviction.

Here’s how I see Republicans making this process so disappointing. They don’t want to hear from sources closest to the president’s actions. They do want to hear sources furthest away. That’s not a group of people interested in the truth.

1. A witness does not need to be an accuser. He simply needs to be someone who witnessed something happen.

2. Your analogy is incomplete. It is better described as a group of people who complain about their neighbor for 3 years after he moves in next door and publicly vow to force him out of the neighborhood. Then, one night, one of them calls the police to complain that he saw the neighbor beating his wife. When the police arrive, however, they find a happy wife in the house bearing no signs of abuse and saying that nothing occurred. They then interview the rest of the neighbors who hated the guy, and several of them say they heard one of the others saying he beat his wife and burned her with cigarettes, but didn't actually see it themselves. They just assumed that he was doing it. One of the neighbors says he was actually in the guy's house, and not only saw no abuse, but could clearly see that the wife was happy and unharmed.

Should the caller be interviewed to find out what he actually knew? Yes.

Is the caller an accuser here? Yes.