New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Dems' impeachment counsel is a Soros toady

Yes, you "could." Because that is what the dems are doing. That doesn't make it right.
Abuse of power is rightfully impeachable.
If they don't impeach Trump for this every Republican Senator will find themselves under investigation in 2021. And they will have no one to blame but themselves.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Abuse of power is rightfully impeachable.
If they don't impeach Trump for this every Republican Senator will find themselves under investigation in 2021. And they will have no one to blame but themselves.
Every President (hell, every politician and bureaucrat, for that matter) abuses their power. It is almost always not a criminal act (because they write the laws). If it isn't done in the commission of a criminal act, it, in and of itself, isn't enough to impeach.
 
Every President (hell, every politician and bureaucrat, for that matter) abuses their power. It is almost always not a criminal act (because they write the laws). If it isn't done in the commission of a criminal act, it, in and of itself, isn't enough to impeach.
"High crimes and misdeamors" has a very specific definition which includes abuse of power and misconduct.

If a president pardoned every serial killer in the US it would be within his or her power, but it would also constitute an abuse of power which is 100% impeachable.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
"High crimes and misdeamors" has a very specific definition which includes abuse of power and misconduct.

If a president pardoned every serial killer in the US it would be within his or her power, but it would also constitute an abuse of power which is 100% impeachable.
Yes, it does. What this episode boils down to is, was Trump asking for a favor that would help him win reelection, or was he merely interested in having an appearance of impropriety looked into. I think the evidence in this case overwhelmingly points to the latter. He clearly did not ask for or imply that he was looking for a specific outcome. If the investigation occurred and found nothing, presumably that would hurt, rather than help, his chances in a race against Biden. If anyone in this whole sordid affair is looking for a pre-determined outcome designed to deliver a political advantage in the next election, it would be your democrats in the house...
 
Yes, it does. What this episode boils down to is, was Trump asking for a favor that would help him win reelection, or was he merely interested in having an appearance of impropriety looked into. I think the evidence in this case overwhelmingly points to the latter. He clearly did not ask for or imply that he was looking for a specific outcome. If the investigation occurred and found nothing, presumably that would hurt, rather than help, his chances in a race against Biden. If anyone in this whole sordid affair is looking for a pre-determined outcome designed to deliver a political advantage in the next election, it would be your democrats in the house...
If there was an actual impropreity the FBI would be looking into it. They aren't because they don't investigate conspiracy theories fabricated by the president's personal lawyer. The president is using foreign aid for personal gain. Which is impeachable.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
If there was an actual impropreity the FBI would be looking into it. They aren't because they don't investigate conspiracy theories fabricated by the president's personal lawyer. The president is using foreign aid for personal gain. Which is impeachable.
That's horse shit. The FBI might be looking into it for all we know. But the FBI cannot subpoena Ukrainians, who would presumably have all of the evidence. If I remember correctly, Trump in fact did ask for them to cooperate with the US in looking into it.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Why do you keep changing the subject.
Why do you? The subject is whether or not the President broke the law and is it an impeachable offense. You guys keep attacking the messenger. The whistle blower hears from people who were in the room during the call...he reports the second hand info that he has. Trump releases his version of the call, which matches what the WB was told...but you guys want to question the WB...why? A group committed to providing oversight of the government, founded by a lawyer, which received funding from Soros...and you suddenly find that Soros is evil and the lawyer is a flunky because that group got money in 2017.

1. Soros has donated money to a lot of causes. You don't seem to like that, but that doesn't make him evil.
2. Right wingers, because Soros donated to democrats or liberal causes, have invented a fictional version of WWII in which Soros (at 13) somehow collaborated with the Nazis or that as an investor has wrecked the economies of various countries. Does he scare you that much? Is he as evil as the Koch brothers have been? The Koch brothers invest millions in US elections because they want the EPA off their backs. They don't like being fined for polluting the air and water around their refineries...What does Soros get for his investments? If you can find some corrupt purpose there, let us know.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
What does that have to do with the fact that all the "witnesses", lawyers, "experts", and other impeachment scammers the Democrats can produce all work for Soros or Clinton?
Really? Of the people who testified before the committee, who of them works for Soros or Clinton?

— Tuesday, Nov. 19, morning:
Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence;
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council.

— Tuesday, Nov. 19, afternoon:
Ambassador Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine;
Tim Morrison, a White House aide with the National Security Council.

— Wednesday, Nov. 20, morning:
Ambassador Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union.

— Wednesday, Nov. 20, afternoon:
Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian Affairs;
David Hale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

— Thursday, Nov. 21, morning:
Fiona Hill, former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia.

The committee wanted to hear from Barr, Pence, OMB, Giuliani....and Trump said no.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Yes, it does. What this episode boils down to is, was Trump asking for a favor that would help him win reelection, or was he merely interested in having an appearance of impropriety looked into. I think the evidence in this case overwhelmingly points to the latter. He clearly did not ask for or imply that he was looking for a specific outcome. If the investigation occurred and found nothing, presumably that would hurt, rather than help, his chances in a race against Biden. If anyone in this whole sordid affair is looking for a pre-determined outcome designed to deliver a political advantage in the next election, it would be your democrats in the house...
1. He has been in office for three years and all of a sudden he feels the need to have Ukraine and China announce investigations into Joe Biden. Coincidentally Biden is beating Trump in the polls.
2. He asked for an investigation into Crowdstrike, which he said is a Ukrainian company...it isn't. He said Biden bragged about stopping an investigation...He lied, Biden never said anything close to that.
3. He asked for Ukraine to cooperate with Giuliani (not a DOJ or government representative).
4. He was pressuring Ukraine for an announcement. He didn't care if they actually did an investigation. Did you forget the phone call with Sondland? "Are they going to announce"?
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
1. He has been in office for three years and all of a sudden he feels the need to have Ukraine and China announce investigations into Joe Biden. Coincidentally Biden is beating Trump in the polls.
2. He asked for an investigation into Crowdstrike, which he said is a Ukrainian company...it isn't. He said Biden bragged about stopping an investigation...He lied, Biden never said anything close to that.
3. He asked for Ukraine to cooperate with Giuliani (not a DOJ or government representative).
4. He was pressuring Ukraine for an announcement. He didn't care if they actually did an investigation. Did you forget the phone call with Sondland? "Are they going to announce"?
Nobody (including you) thinks Biden is going to be the nominee.

Perhaps he was referring to the dnc hack in general, which does have a Ukrainian tie:

https://krebsonsecurity.com/tag/dnc-hack/

He tends to fracture his syntax, and muddle his messages. After all, he's not exactly a polished politician.

You don't really know who (all) he was asking them them to cooperate with. Regardless, who cares if it was Giuliani? America uses non-state investigators all the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Halper

WTF good is an announcement? Particularly this far in advance of the election?
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
I’m sure that Barr’s DOJ will arrest and indict him and Schiff any day now. Otherwise we will all assume that this is just another turd plucked from some right wing nut blog.
I'm sure they(The CCCP- Colluding Commrades Chaired by Pelosi) will try to arrest anyone who disagrees. The CCCP will come lock, stock and goosestep. It's clear that you care nothing about the truth or the laws of this country. Your moniker should have been jackyerfreedom.
 

Jack4freedom

Governor
I'm sure they(The CCCP- Colluding Commrades Chaired by Pelosi) will try to arrest anyone who disagrees. The CCCP will come lock, stock and goosestep. It's clear that you care nothing about the truth or the laws of this country. Your moniker should have been jackyerfreedom.
Congress has no power to arrest anyone. That’s the job of Barr’s DOJ. So there’s that. Perhaps you should read a book about how our government works under the laws set forth in the US Constitution Then you might get a better grip on what is going on here and instead of writing silly posts like the one above, you could write something less ignorant and laughable.

I care deeply about the truth and the laws of this country. That is why I am glad that the US House of Representatives doing their duty as overseers of the Executive branch as per the US Constitution. You might want to read that too. Processes like impeachment are what separates us from monarchy’s and other totalitarian regimes like Communist Russia under Stalin, Kleptocrat Russia of today under dictator Putin, or the Nazi regime under Hitler.

Imagine if a panel of elected officials dared to investigate Stalin, Hitler or Putin. They would be arrested and murdered immediately. However here in the good old USA we have a system of checks and balances which have prevented any one person from running the country for his own benefit instead of at the behest of the people who elected him. That’s what separates us from totalitarian tyranny.

What Congress is doing is right in line with the US Constitution. All four constitutional scholars who testified said as much. Even Turley said that it was. He suggested that the House take more time and call more witnesses to tighten up their case instead of rushing it. The other three clearly stated that they have more than enough to impeach right now. This is what “Makes America Great”....Cheers
 

Jack4freedom

Governor
Really? Of the people who testified before the committee, who of them works for Soros or Clinton?

— Tuesday, Nov. 19, morning:
Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence;
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council.

— Tuesday, Nov. 19, afternoon:
Ambassador Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine;
Tim Morrison, a White House aide with the National Security Council.

— Wednesday, Nov. 20, morning:
Ambassador Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union.

— Wednesday, Nov. 20, afternoon:
Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian Affairs;
David Hale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

— Thursday, Nov. 21, morning:
Fiona Hill, former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia.

The committee wanted to hear from Barr, Pence, OMB, Giuliani....and Trump said no.
Anybody that doesn’t say what Trump wants works for Soros according to blindly ignorant Hannitized Ditto Heads. They have been trained like circus monkeys.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
Congress has no power to arrest anyone. That’s the job of Barr’s DOJ. So there’s that. Perhaps you should read a book about how our government works under the laws set forth in the US Constitution Then you might get a better grip on what is going on here and instead of writing silly posts like the one above, you could write something less ignorant and laughable.

I care deeply about the truth and the laws of this country. That is why I am glad that the US House of Representatives doing their duty as overseers of the Executive branch as per the US Constitution. You might want to read that too. Processes like impeachment are what separates us from monarchy’s and other totalitarian regimes like Communist Russia under Stalin, Kleptocrat Russia of today under dictator Putin, or the Nazi regime under Hitler.

Imagine if a panel of elected officials dared to investigate Stalin, Hitler or Putin. They would be arrested and murdered immediately. However here in the good old USA we have a system of checks and balances which have prevented any one person from running the country for his own benefit instead of at the behest of the people who elected him. That’s what separates us from totalitarian tyranny.

What Congress is doing is right in line with the US Constitution. All four constitutional scholars who testified said as much. Even Turley said that it was. He suggested that the House take more time and call more witnesses to tighten up their case instead of rushing it. The other three clearly stated that they have more than enough to impeach right now. This is what “Makes America Great”....Cheers
Lets break this down:

Democrats have accused the president of abusing his power by trying to pressure the Ukrainian government to announce investigations into his political rivals. They also claim that Mr. Trump obstructed the congressional inquiry by blocking witnesses from testifying and refusing to provide documents.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judiciary-committee-releases-report-defining-impeachable-offense/ar-BBXTIut?ocid=spartandhp

Wasn't the charge Russian Collusion?

Read a book...Obviously you did not. Not intended to insult, but you will take it that way...but let's review why you are 0 for 47 on claims for impeachment.

Section 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

You have proven none of these!

You last witnesses on the stand claimed to overheard a phone call through a wall...Real genius there.

The House had made up more lies and Pelosi says that Trump needs tp prove his innocence...So no neither one of you understands the constitution.

My suggestion....Get a real candidate that has a chance to win cuz the Senate won't convict Trump!
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Lets break this down:

Democrats have accused the president of abusing his power by trying to pressure the Ukrainian government to announce investigations into his political rivals. They also claim that Mr. Trump obstructed the congressional inquiry by blocking witnesses from testifying and refusing to provide documents.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judiciary-committee-releases-report-defining-impeachable-offense/ar-BBXTIut?ocid=spartandhp

Wasn't the charge Russian Collusion?

Read a book...Obviously you did not. Not intended to insult, but you will take it that way...but let's review why you are 0 for 47 on claims for impeachment.

Section 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

You have proven none of these!

You last witnesses on the stand claimed to overheard a phone call through a wall...Real genius there.

The House had made up more lies and Pelosi says that Trump needs tp prove his innocence...So no neither one of you understands the constitution.

My suggestion....Get a real candidate that has a chance to win cuz the Senate won't convict Trump!
Did Trump break the law by putting a hold on Congressionally appropriated funds without notifying them of the hold? Yes. Did Trump impede the investigation by telling government employees not to testify? Yes.

That is all that is needed to impeach.
 

Jack4freedom

Governor
Yes, it does. What this episode boils down to is, was Trump asking for a favor that would help him win reelection, or was he merely interested in having an appearance of impropriety looked into. I think the evidence in this case overwhelmingly points to the latter. He clearly did not ask for or imply that he was looking for a specific outcome. If the investigation occurred and found nothing, presumably that would hurt, rather than help, his chances in a race against Biden. If anyone in this whole sordid affair is looking for a pre-determined outcome designed to deliver a political advantage in the next election, it would be your democrats in the house...
One of Trump’s hand picked 3 Amigos (3Stooges) Sondland clearly stated that Trump wanted the Ukranian President to go in front of TV michrophones and announce that a new investigation has been launched into The Bidens. He didn’t really care if there was an nvestigation, just that he cast espursions on Biden for campaign purposes. Then he could run another Lock Him Up campaign. That is obvious to any objective person regarding this issue.
 
Top