Shouldn't the Impeachment of a President Be Open and Transparent?

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (118 posts)

0
The Minstrelposted 4 years ago
With something so serious, you would think that Pelosi and the rest of her conspirators would bring a level of respectability to their so-called impeachment inquiry by following a strict adherence to the Constitution and rules. No, they have chosen to use their majority to run a kangaroo court. Why? Why are the Democrats hiding the whistleblowers? Why are they not bringing this to a floor vote? Why are they conducting investigative sessions behind closed doors and leaking only certain information to the public? Do they think the American public cannot decide for themselves whether this impeachment is valid or not? Why? Because it is a sham! It's all a lie! The lack of transparency and honesty in this investigation proves that the Democrats are scared and desperate in their attempts to remove a duly elected president by this half cocked strategy of fake impeachment!
reply report
1. 95
  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I would have answered your questions, but you already did that, and did it very well.
  reply report
2. 86
  James A Watkinsposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Wait a minute . . . are you trying to say the president of the United States should not be removed from office based on a rumor from an anonymous person that doesn't like him? Are you only saying that because he was duly elected by the citizens of his country?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  No, I think he is saying Trump should get kicked out of office if he is impeached and found guilty via a Constitutional process.
  
  Only people who want to undermine the Constitution will oppose it.
  reply report
3. 93
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I think the biggest problem for the Democrats is that the transcript was released to the public. Whistleblowers are irrelevant. People getting upset by the call are irrelevant. THAT is what makes this such a scam. Like Congressman Al Green has said...if they don't impeach President Donald Trump, he could win the next presidential race. THAT is called fear. I believe THAT is the motivation behind this scam impeachment proceedings. It has nothing to do with anything illegal but everything to do with trying to keep President Donald Trump from being elected again. What a shame they don't have the decency to see if the electoral process could take him out of office. I see who would be running against President Donald Trump and I understand why they're scared.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  What happened to the other 30+ minutes of the 40 minute call, Mike? Since no interpreter was needed, that's a lot of dead time. And if you really believe the transcript was complete, I've got some swampland you may be interested in....
  reply report
  88
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Pelosi and the Democrats are respectably following the law and only the ignorant believe they are running a kangaroo court. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 is the chief protection for a whistleblower, but there are other laws protecting them, too, such as the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, which by the way, does not give everyone the right to know everything when it involves National Security.
  
  https://searchcompliance.techtarget.com … ection-Act
  
  Otherwise, they would be subjected to death threats aimed at them and their families. Anonymity provides them the protection to appear before Congress and testify under oath without the fear and threats they would face if their identity is revealed before they testify. This hearing involves National Security because Trump admitted that he made the phone call soliciting the Ukraine President to investigate his political opponent. National Security, truth and safety actually take precedence over your curiosity. You Republicans believed that was important during the Clinton four-year witch hunt, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, it pinches and there is a lot of howling. Sorry, but that train moves in both directions.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Is it just me, or is the Republican whining extra infantile lately? Trump has truly taken over the GOP....
  reply report
  88
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  It isn't just you, it is any thinking person. He certainly has taken over the Repubs just like Hitler took over his followers and ruled with a hand of fear, first taking over the press and using it to his advantage. The GOP is squawking about transparency, all the while hiding Trump's dealings, both business and government.
  Repubs aren't looking at the facts either. They keep squawking that Trump should take the Dems to court. He has and he is, but he is losing.
  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/us/p … oenas.html
  
  Judge rules against Trump three times in one day on taxes, border wall, etc.
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5O-WJYTxkM
  
  Since Trump hasn't been able to take over the American Press, except for Fox, he is calling the others "fake news". God bless our free press and the 1st. Amendment.
  reply report
  92
  Jean Bakulaposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  It's so sad that not one R had the guts to stand up for what was right in the hearing about the impeachment inquiry today. History will judge them. Mueller proved obstruction, and Trump has actually said he wants to read the Ukraine conversation as "a fireside chat." He's so unintelligent, he doesn't realize that he is basically impeaching himself. It's against the law to ask a foreign power to interfere in our elections. He denied them arms that Congress had already approved. And Barr was chosen because he showed himself to be a Trump toadie before he got the AG job. His interpretation of the Mueller report was false. But I guess people don't read? There have been many shows that explained it, but not on Fox News. Mueller felt it was wrong to indict a sitting POTUS, and should have recused himself. But he DID find evidence of crimes. When career diplomats are putting their jobs on the line to testify against Trump, you know he's toast. There was clear evidence of a quid pro quo. And he keeps repeating the damning statement, and tweeting about it. I wonder what these R's will do when it's proven The Emperor Has No Clothes?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, it's more proof they want Trump gone. They are all talk and no action.
  
  They could do so much more to defend Trump but aren't.
  reply report
4. 68
  abwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  “A level of respectability”, “strict adherence to the Constitution”, no, if they ever had an ounce of any of that in them, it quickly evaporated with the entrance of Donald Trump.
  I would describe Pelosi, Schiff and Company as whimsically and destructively flying by the seat of their pants.
  They’ve lost all credibility and will probably crash, but how much harm are they doing in the process?
  reply report
  0
  The Minstrelposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I totally agree.
  reply report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  So well said...
  reply report
5. 83
  Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "Why are the Democrats hiding the whistleblowers?"
  
  Whistleblowers are protected by law. The House is complying with the law. It is right to protect whistleblowers (people who do their duty) from those who would do them harm.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Trump and his supporters don't give a hoot about the law. They have proven it over and over again.
  reply report
6. 80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  This impeachment inquiry should be as previous impeachments were handled. The Republican should be able to question anyone that is questioned, and they should be able to request witnesses or use subpoena power if needed. The only way the Republicans can participate is after a vote to impeach is taken. So, in my opinion, this is nothing but a form of a kangaroo court. A cheap political stunt to keep up the Dem's media-bashing spree.
  
  The Dem's can't vote because at that point Trump will be able to defend himself, with access to each and everyone this bunch questioned, plus call his own witnesses not to mention Cheif Justice Roberts will run the circus. I think we can feel assured Robert's will be able to protect Trump's constitutional rights. The Senate will not vote Trump out.
  
  As always the Dem's will look like fools, but their very accustom to looking foolish. I mean did you catch the debate last night?
  
  Yes, it's a sham, a cheap ploy, a grift. Hopefully in Trump's next four he can turn the congress back to the Republican majority.
  reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago
You guys do realize Trump will get a trial, don't you? If he's innocent of the very obvious--as well as some being admitted to--crimes while in office, he'll get a chance to sit before the world and vindicate himself. You guys don't believe he would lie do you?
reply report
61
Live to Learnposted 4 years ago
I say let them keep it up. They are showing themselves for the partisan people they are, willing to trash the constitution all the while to see if idiots will swallow their contorted reasoning and be their foot soldiers in claiming ignoring the constitution is somehow protecting it.
reply report
1. 93
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure we can agree by the responses from people on the left that they are NOT legal scholars. It appears most don't even have a basic understanding of impeachment. It is humorous but at the same time very sad.
  reply report
  0
  The Minstrelposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yup. Sad.
  reply report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Mike, In this case, one does not need a bit of legal knowledge, just a normal sense of smell.
  reply report
2. 88
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Both sides are guilty of partisanship, but it is the Dems who are following the Constitution by protecting the whistleblowers rights. If you threw every whistleblower to the dogs every time they howled, there would be no rights under our Constitution...and nobody to report violations no matter how egregious.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  The Right has run out of excuses for the cretin, Miz. They cannot disprove the facts and are stuck with nothing but, buts....
  reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago
Just wondering, with the Democrats conducting the impeachment proceedings in violation of the constitution, has the administration gone to the courts to remedy this blatant misconduct?
reply report
1. 0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Excellent point. Yes, Trump should take them to court.
  
  Trump also said Pelosi and Schiff are traitors and acting illegally, so he should use the DOJ to throw them in jail.
  
  I wonder why he hasn't done any of that yet.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure one of the legal scholars from the Right--perhaps Mike--will chime in and set it straight, Scott. Wait for it.....
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I had to ask, given the amount of certainty displayed here that the Democrats are violating the constitution.
  reply report
  61
  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Right now the democrats are just
  posturing and playing to the cameras. If they attempt to move forward with their bullying and exclusionary tactics, I'm sure you will see a court challenge.
  reply report
0
The Minstrelposted 4 years ago
It's interesting that people who are against Trump on this forum thread never answered my question: shouldn't an impeachment of a president be open and transparent? This shows me that they know this whole impeachment inquiry is a sham. The ends do not justify the means. I totally respect that people do not like Trump, even abhor him. However, get him out of office in a legal and upright manner. Maybe winning on election day would be a good start. Also, Hillary needs to stop whining. She got her butt kicked by someone she should have beaten. This shows me and others that she was a terrible candidate from the start. Her inability to lose graciously speaks volumes about her character. I thank God she is not sitting in the White House.
reply report
1. 93
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Amen.
  reply report
2. 0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  You got your answer from Panther with a related answer from me. I guess you are ignoring us.
  
  Again, if it's not open and transparent, why aren't Trump and the Repubs in court?
  
  Because the Dems are following the law, not Trump's hissy fits.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  You didn't really expect them to respond to the questions, did you Scott? You're fortunate to get a "bless your heart" response.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  LOL. I usually get no answer, a juvenile personal attack or an answer that mangles human logic.
  reply report
  93
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I hate to be the one to tell you this, but I don't think the people on the left on these threads have even a basic knowledge or understanding of court procedures and federal statutes to understand what is happening. I can't take the time to explain everything at a level people on the left can comprehend. It may be a bit too complicated for them and that is as honest as I can be. The left doesn't understand much, and I don't think there is anything that can change that situation.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  BWAHAHAHA! Cop out, Mike. Please educate we dumb asses on the left with your words of wisdom, O legal scholar. Make it simple enough for a Republican to understand and we'll surely get it.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  OK, legal expert, tell us why Trump hasn't filed anything in court against Pelosi or why the DOJ hasn't brought charges.
  
  While we're at it, what is your legal experience?
  reply report
3. 80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it should be open and transparent, which precedent dictates. At this point, the Dem's do not have to be transparent due to this sham inquiry title they have placed on the proceeding. Once that vote is taken it will be transparent, and much open to the public viewing.
  
  The Dem's can't afford that. Why? Because Trump has not done anything to deserve impeachment. This is just another cheap Dem political ploy. The difference we are paying for this one. Hillary and the DNC paid for the last one...
  reply report
4. 86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  When conducting the investigation into a person believed to have committed a crime, do detectives include the defense attorneys? No. Once all the evidence is collected and they are charged, then it is shared. Not sure why you think it should be any different in this case.
  
  As for your second claim, you want the election to determine things. But the reasons for the impeachment are that Trump broke the law in regards to the upcoming election. Trump broke laws during the 2016 election. Free and fair elections apparently is not something the current GOP and especially Trump supporters believe in.
  reply report
0
The Minstrelposted 4 years ago
Yes, this will sadly have to go to the Supreme Court and the Democrat inspired coup will be shot down. However, before that happens why not be transparent and bring some respectability to this very serious step by the House? If Trump is impeachable why do it this way? Why the secrecy? Why are you supporting this? Why would you follow people who do not care about laws or even the Constitution? The Democrats are doing irreparable damage to our country and laws by running rough shod over this very serious initiative called impeachment. I am not saying you need to like or support Donald Trump, but whether you are Democrat or Republican, the actions by the house leaders of the Democrat Party are beyond reprehensible and should cause you some concern.
reply report
1. 59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  As several have wondered, do you not understand the Whistleblower Act? A simply yes or no will suffice. Come on......you can do this!
  reply report
  61
  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Have you not been paying attention as more facts have come out?
  
  A simple yes or no. I'm pretty sure you can do that.
  reply report
2. 0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I see you are promoting violence again with inflammatory rhetoric about a coup.
  
  You're also ignoring the fact that Trump aides and Republican leaders are supporting the impeachment process.
  reply report
61
Live to Learnposted 4 years ago
What I find sad are those who have no problem with the lack of transparency would be screaming bloody murder if the parties were reversed. I'd be screaming with them. Because what is happening is wrong.
reply report
1. 0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Meanwhile, Trump aides and Republican leaders are helping the impeachment process along.
  
  Are they all wrong too?
  reply report
  61
  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  It is wrong to bypass tradition in the impeachment process. It is wrong to railroad the process, refuse to allow participation by other representatives, to selectively release unclassified information for the most partisan effect.
  
  I can't believe some can't understand how bad the optics are. If he is so guilty, why avoid openness, fairness and transparency?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Republicans are on all three investigating committees. They can question anyone who comes before the committees. They can release information all day long.
  
  Republicans on those committees also can file court challenges, but they have not.
  reply report
  61
  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  You obviously haven't been following the news.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Another sweeping generalization without facts.
  
  Prove that I'm wrong.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Are you really so ignorant you didn't know the Republicans changed the rules whereby there has to be no vote for impeachment before the inquires begin? I can't believe how the rules are so simple but some cannot understand them. Trump supporters...try explaining their thought processes if you dare!
  reply report
  93
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I would like you to provide proof of such a statement. It hasn't happened since the Democrat took the majority in the mid-term elections. The Republicans aren't the majority party. So, when did this alleged rule change occur? I just want to see your proof.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I think Randy and I still want to hear all about your legal expertise to back up your statement about the legal ignorance of "the left".
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Wait, it is wrong to bypass tradition in government processes? Tell that to Merrick Garland. And if we're referring specifically to impeachment, there was a full five months between the impeachment inquiry being opened and an actual vote on anything in the Nixon case. Selective outrage again.
  reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago
I see no one has explained how the Democrats are violating the constitution or breaking "the rules." Lol, you all sounded so certain.

I'm sure Trump and his crack legal team are on it.
reply report
1. 59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I figured Mike would wade in on this one, especially as he so often claims the left isn't as schooled in the law as he apparently thinks he is. NAH!
  reply report
  93
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Still, no proof of your statement?
  
  "the Republicans changed the rules whereby there has to be no vote for impeachment before the inquires begin"
  
  Only imagination. You need to stop making up these imaginary Republican votes. It's easy check. I applaud your effort.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Still waiting for you to answer Sandy's above query of your claim Schiff and other's have violated the Constitution, Mike.
  reply report
  87
  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Don't know about Republicans changing the rules, but here's a law blog on the inquiry being perfectly legal and constitutional:
  
  https://www.lawfareblog.com/must-house- … nt-inquiry
  
  Another link:
  
  https://www.npr.org/2019/10/09/76854089 … mpeachment
  
  And finally:
  
  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/p … hment.html
  
  Maybe Breitfart has something on it? Don't know.
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Just another example of the GOP changing the norms of government, and now complaining when the Democrats use those new changes. Poor little snowflakes. Really surprised such a brilliant legal mind that Mike claims to have didn't know about this change to the subpoena rules.
  
  https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ … les-115068
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, the Right doesn't like it when their own rules changes comes back and bites 'em on the butt.
  reply report
  0
  The Minstrelposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  What rule change in regards to impeaching a president?
  reply report
  93
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, that article is from 2015. At that time the Republicans were in the majority in Congress because they could change the rules. Guess what? The Democrats are the majority party right now. Guess what? THEY can change the rules. So, since you don't seem very aware of how this happens here is the procedures to change the rules.
  
  https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL30945
  
  Any other type of enlightenment I can provide you today?
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, you can enlighten me on why the Democrats shouldn't use the rules created by the GOP that gives the majority party all the subpoena power instead of making a joke of yourself in making the assumption that everyone but yourself doesn't understand how rules are changed.
  reply report
  93
  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "making the assumption that everyone but yourself doesn't understand how rules are changed."
  
  Based on the comments on this thread it is painfully obvious I am right.
  
  All the left can do is make snarky comments, call names and complain. I may some day see someone from the left post something of substance, I know I haven't seen it on this thread. It's no longer funny to me. It's just plain sad.
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I did enjoy your self delusional rant that you think you're smart because you can deflect away from the question we asked. Why shouldn't the Democrats use the rules created by the GOP that allows the majority party subpoena power when they are conducting inquiries (such as was done when they ran an inquiry into Benghazi)?
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Avoiding answering pertinent questions makes you look brilliant, Mike. How do you come up with such clever moves?
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  What a joke! Now you want the left to give up the advantage the right wanted to begin with?
  
  Anything to benefit Trump, eh Mike?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Welcome to fascism.
  
  Why do we need more than one political party?
  reply report
  76
  Castlepalomaposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  They are both on the same pro wrestling tag team for magolomanics.
  
  When will the public ever learn they are the boss and pay the bills.
  reply report
2. 80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  It appears that it is not illegal in regards to holding n impeachment inquiry without a vote. I don't think Pelosi would hold the hearings without being sure she was breaking no laws.
  
  However, It appears the Republicans are referring to the inquiry procedures illegal, due to the Dem's not following the legal precedent that they claim was set with the previous two presidential impeachments. In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case that establishes a principle or rule.
  
  Precedent in the other cases of impeachments was voted on by the House Of Representatives. It also appears some in Congress are stating they are not having the opportunity to do their job, by not having the right to sit in on the hearings and or have transcripts from the hearings. There very well might be Congressional law being broken due to denying Congressmen and women the privilege to do their job and be involved in the inquiry.
  
  It will be interesting to see if any Congressmen or Congresswomen file any lawsuits.
  
  .
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "It will be interesting to see if any Congressmen or Congresswomen file any lawsuits."
  
  Do you think maybe the reason they haven't is because there is no basis?
  reply report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I do agree most likely some of them would have filed by now or will in the next few days if they really felt they had a leg to stand on.
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  In both of those impeachments, there was a special counsel who had done the inquiry phase. As there is no special counsel for this potential violation of the law, you should not use the term precedent as they are clearly different in that aspect and, therefore, should not necessarily need to follow all the exact steps of the previous two impeachments.
  reply report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Please note word "appears" in my statement. I was giving an opinion. My opinion in no respect insulted or giving weight to the Republican's complaint that the Congress is not using precedent in regards to voting on impeachment.
  
  My statement ---" However, It appears the Republicans are referring to the inquiry procedures illegal, due to the Dem's not following the legal precedent that they claim was set with the previous two presidential impeachments".
  
  "It appears that it is not illegal in regards to holding n impeachment inquiry without a vote. I don't think Pelosi would hold the hearings without being sure she was breaking no laws. " PURE OPINION
  
  Context is important, please read my comment again, and I think you will find I was giving an opinion.
  
  Please keep in mind I was responding to a comment that was rightly questioning the legalitis of the inquiry. I commented with the information I obtained and observed from articles and a bit of media reports. An opinion.
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I'm fine with you having an opinion. What I'm aiming to do with this, is to help you understand that this impeachment is drastically different from the previous two due to the lack of the presence of a special counsel.
  
  Therefore, the precedent of previous actions taken in those two impeachments should not apply due to that major difference in who is conducting the inquiry phase that will need to be taken.
  reply report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  "I'm fine with you having an opinion. What I'm aiming to do with this, is to help you understand that this impeachment is drastically different from the previous two due to the lack of the presence of a special counsel. "
  
  I had I have also heard several Republicans that are opposed to the way the inquiry is being handled that suggested special councile be appointed as in the other two impeachments were privileged to have had. It would be fair if all the allegations that are being talked about being investigated. This would certainly be fairer than how it is being handled at this point. Yes, it would be once again a time-consuming investigation. But in the end, we will have clarity.
  
  Yes, Trump's impeachment is not anything like the previous two. As you pointed out both of the other two were treated differently by having a special council that should be nonbias do an investigation.
  
  Only the blind could not see the injustice of having Adam Schiff presiding over this proceedings. He has been clearly biased in regard to everything Trump. He has been a regular on talk TV making nothing but derogatory statements in regards to the Trump presidency. Not sure how anyone could except his outcome of this injury. Yes, we need a special counsel.
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Now that you've agreed that the precedents of the first two are not similar to this one, let's proceed to the second question which goes to your other point about fairness.
  
  I asked this to Savvy in another thread. When someone is thought to have committed a crime, detectives investigate. Are the defense lawyers included in the investigations? Or is it only after the investigation is done, and charges filed (articles of impeachment voted upon), that the evidence gathered is given to the defense (discovery)?
  
  Why is it that you are willing to accept a totally new standard for how crimes are handled? Because Trump and the GOP want you to so they can create confusion is that reason. You claim precedent, well, how about we try and understand what precedent is and then apply it equally across the board.
  reply report
  0
  Bruce Utterposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  88
  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I believe you are both confused. This investigation is the next step above the special counsel hearings. That has already happened, and Mueller was the special counsel of which you speak. Rep. Adam Schiff is the Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence therefore he has the right to preside along with Speaker Pelosi. House hearings are the first step to impeachment conducted by the Speaker of the House. The House of Representatives must pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. Do you see why a "special counsel" is not involved? If the House votes to impeach, the next step is the that the Senate will vote on whether to remove the president from office. That is the actual trial phase and will be led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and again, no special counsel. In both cases, house and senate rules are followed, and in neither case is a special counsel involved. The special counsel has already made his investigation prior to the separate House and Senate hearings. I hope I've made this simple enough for you to understand.
  reply report
0
The Minstrelposted 4 years ago
The statue of lady justice is blind folded in order to emphasize rulings should not be affected by personal bias. Having Adam Schiff, a clearly compromised, biased individual, run the Stalinist, closed door, impeachment hearings is almost laughable. Is he pursuing justice? Well, let me think. I wonder. Maybe his past statements that he had clear evidence that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians should not come into play even though he lied through his fangs. Maybe he had a momentary lapse of good judgment. Well, after deliberating for two seconds, I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Adam Schiff never had blindfolds period, blatantly lies, and is clearly not seeking any form of justice. Therefore, the whole impeachment hearing is a complete farce, sham, and political theatre. Sad.
reply report
1. 86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  So Manafort giving internal polling data to the Kremlin wasn't colluding?
  So Jr., Manafort, and Kushner meeting with Russians and then lying about having the meeting and what the meeting was about wasn't colluding?
  Trump intermediaries (Stone) being in contact with Russian puppet Assange about the timing and contents of the hacked e-mail releases isn't colluding?
  Asking the Russian government to go after your political opponent publicly and then getting that assistance isn't colluding?
  The continued business dealings of a Trump Tower deal and Russia well into the campaign and Trump lying about those, not collusion?
  The over 200 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia?
  
  There was no conspiracy proven, but there's mountains of evidence on collusion that is beyond proven. Not that we expect you to ever accept these facts that were proven.
  reply report
  79
  DoubleScorpionposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  The Mueller report said No Collusion...? So, unless Mueller was wrong...where is the evidence of collusion...
  
  And he didn't even bother with Obstruction...
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Parroting Trump's false claim won't make it true:
  
  The fact that Mueller’s report finding of ample evidence of collaboration, albeit insufficient to prove a criminal conspiracy with Russia, has been clouded by the repeated false assertion by President Trump and Attorney-General Barr of “no collusion.” The term, “collusion” is not a legal term and the report made no finding on that issue, one way or the other. Enabling Mueller to state on national television that the report did not find that there was “no collusion” helps confirm that the many statements by the president and the attorney general on this issue are false.
  
  Mueller’s report made no finding on the crime of obstruction of justice despite evidence of multiple attempts at obstruction, apparently because of the Department of Justice ruling that a sitting president cannot be indicted for any crime. The simple one-word confirmation by Mueller that the report made no finding on the crime of obstruction of justice helps confirm that the president’s and attorney general's repeated claims of “no obstruction” are also false.
  reply report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Have I missed something? Have any crimes been set forth from the Mueller report that will be used in the impeachment? Simple yes or no will do me... Need not go into your lengthy book on the subject.
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, the Democrats are fighting in the courts to get the release of the grand jury documents pertaining to the obstruction of justice files from Mueller.
  reply report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that is true. Would you surmise one would have to inspect what is in those documents before coming to a conclusion if there are nay provable crimes that were committed? I have put my finger on why we have a problem with what constitutes a crime or wrongdoing. You seem to jump ahead of yourself, make assumptions due to smoke. I like fire, pure fire. Because smoke although it can turn into fire, more often just smolders and dies out.
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I consider the 10 instances of obstruction of justice Mueller listed in his report as fire already. The grand jury might be like the Taylor testimony yesterday, the gasoline on that criminal fire.
  reply report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I found the list Mueller gave for obstruction unproven, and the fact he listed he offered no real evidence to corroborate the list of what may have been considered obstruction crimes. Plus Barr did not find any of them indictable crimes. I am very sure you do not respect Barr, but he is the AG, and he had the last word on the subject.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, you missed the part about Jr. and others not being forthcoming to Mueller and that goes for any documents he asked for as well. And then you have Honest Don refusing to answer any questions about collusion from Mueller. Add it up people...
  
  This won't happen again with the Impeachment inquiry in full swing. EP doesn't have the same power in this case.
  reply report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  If our government as proof that Jr committed a crime by conspiring with Russians he can immediately be arrested. Mueller did not indite him or recommend he be indicted. Mueller would have loved to trap JR... I absolutely love to have him arrested for anything. Time to stop insinuating the Trump children committed crimes. Otherwise, you are insinuating our Government is not doing their job.
  
  Where the hell has common sense gone?
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I have to admit, I was surprised Mueller didn't charge Trump staffers in the meeting because the theme about adoptions was a clear instance that the Russians were referring to the Magnitsky Act in discussions with the Trump members in that meeting. Russia had put restrictions on Americans being able to adopt from Russia in retaliation to the Magnitsky Act that was passed.
  
  If I was in Congress, I would want to see interviews with all three, under oath, about that meeting. Mueller did not get Jr. under oath, this according to the DOJ. So because Mueller did not have enough information about the substance of that meeting, I doubt he could get to the conspiracy charge. While clearly willing to listen and accept dirt from a foreign government, there was no proof they actually did, or that they made a quid pro quo at this meeting.
  
  This is an example where I think Mueller failed in his investigation. Not subpoenaing and getting testimony from Jr., especially about the Trump Tower meeting was one example.
  reply report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I understand you feel Meuller failed in his investigation, and I will not argue that opinion. I have lots of questions myself about how he conducted the investigation.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Mueller didn't subpoena Trump to be interviewed, but he should have made Trump take the 5th or answer questions. We all know Trump would have lied to Mueller. When Barr became AG, Mueller knew Barr would not serve a subpoena on Trump and the investigation was basically over.
  
  Common sense has evaded the Right for the last 3 years now, and I don't see it returning any time soon.
  reply report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I am very aware Meuller did not question JR. I meant to point out Mueller would have loved to have anything on JR. Mueller apparently did not have enough to even have him subpoenaed for questioning?
  
  I have no idea who would have lied ...
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  My point was Jr. and others were not forthcoming with documents or the truth in the interview with Mueller. Why not? What do they have to hide? As if we didn't know...
  reply report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Randy, I don't know what they have to hide? I don't have any knowledge if they were not forthcoming? This is the very point, I have tried to make my self clear about the importance of facts. I feel many here do not understand the point I am trying to make in regards to the difference between innuendo, (perhaps very believable innuendo) and fact.
  
  There certainly have been many accusations about the president, and anyone that is acquainted with him. You ask me "what do they have to hide?" Do you know what they have to hide? I don't... I am not willing to join in groupthink? I feel it unfair to accuse anyone of anything unless I realize some facts have been presented. I can wait, I can then appreciate the findings, and condemn if need be.
  
  We all adopt different beliefs due to life experiences. Why not respect mine as I respect yours?
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Just a friendly reminder that we're now up to 1,027 former federal prosecutors who claim that Donald J. Trump would have been indicted on obstruction of justice charges would he not be shielded by his position as president.
  
  https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement … b7691c2aa1
  
  "We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience."
  reply report
  87
  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Valeant, no matter how many crimes Trump commits, his supporters simply don't care. They're living in a different universe from us, getting their information from completely different sources. Everything is a conspiracy. Everything is the Democrats fault. Trump is doing everything right. He's a President who speaks truth and can't be bought.
  
  No evidence and no amount of agreement among those with expertise will ever be enough to convince them otherwise.
  
  So why try?
  report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Close family live in an area where the Kool-Aid is being consumed. I like to practice de-programming techniques with Sharlee as she fits the demographic of who I need to convince to leave the cult.
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  This is where I'm at now. Why bother? They're gone and nothing the man says or does will bring them back.
  
  Heck, a white house lawyer just argued in federal court that the president could shoot someone and could not be prosecuted. This is what we've come to.
  report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I read your link. A few thinks are relevant to me. The list or number that signed the link is not available. I did a bit of looking around, and I find most articles do not offer that information. It does appear many signed the letter.
  
  "Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
  The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:"
  
  This sentence caught my attention ---"The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge:"
  
  Satisfy elements... There is no indication that this would have been a prosecutable case. If this would have been added to the letter it would hold more weight. There is no indication in the letter that claims there is a provable case. Most of the possible crimes of obstruction listed the president was well within his right to do.
  
  "In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent"
  This statement says it all.
  
  I appreciate the link. One never knows at some point after leaving office these charges could come up and charges are filed. The Congress may add some of these charges to their impeachment complaint, and they would end up in the trial? One never knows.
  report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently you failed to scroll down far enough, there is a full list in there with the total number list in the table near the end.
  
  I really cannot believe you just said this: 'There is no indication that this would have been a prosecutable case.'
  
  Especially after you quote this: 'Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.'
  
  And after I quoted this: "We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience."
  
  In English, anyone else not protected by being president would have been indicted. Once indicted, we all believe we would have secured a conviction.
  report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  I read the complete document. As I was addressing your comment I noted two very derogatory comments that were clearly addressing at me."
  
  "Close family live in an area where the Kool-Aid is being consumed. I like to practice de-programming techniques with Sharlee as she fits the demographic of who I need to convince to leave the cult."
  
  "This is where I'm at now. Why bother? They're gone and nothing the man says or does will bring them back."
  
  I did try to leave our conversation on a polite note. You could learn from my attitude. Never guested you would reply after my last post?
  
  I will be more careful who I converse with here, not worth the energy. I will leave you with this thought --- birds of a feather
  report
  86
  Valeantposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  You claim to have read it, but appeared to have missed the big table with the scroll bar that allows readers to view the bipartisan signatories to the statement made.
  
  If my opinion that Trump supporters are similar to a cult where they only believe the world view of the cult leader in the face of so many contradicting facts comes off as derogatory, so be it. Just know that's how you guys are coming across and that last post that tried to re-frame the letter that those 1,027 former federal prosecutors signed as anything but damning was a perfect illustration.
  report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  So nice to see groupthink and rudeness is alive and well... Yes, I do agree with PP "why bother". Anyone can spot the "demographic" of this forum's main population. Just by the lack of users that post or stick around.
  report
  79
  DoubleScorpionposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Well... considering I watched his testimony live....and he said the same thing...no collusion...
  reply report
  80
  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, seems as if there will be none of these crimes that many accuse Trump of are being used for reasons of impeachment. One would think if any of these supposed crimes were true, they should be very easy to prove> Mueller did a lengthy very torow investigation.
  
  You may not have got the memo? They have moved on to Ukraine - Ukraine - Ukraine!
  
  Not sure what the Dem's will use when Trump wins in 2020. However, they never disappoint.
  reply report
  0
  The Minstrelposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Mueller Report proved no collusion and no obstruction. 22 months, 19 lawyers, 40 FBI, 2800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses, and 30 million taxpayer dollars. What a waste! This impeachment sham is another complete waste! Again, this impeachment inquiry is complete bullshit!
  reply report
0
The Minstrelposted 4 years ago
Look, if this whole thing gets transferred to the Senate (It will never happen. The House can control the narrative if they keep it in the House), then it will be shut down immediately. The whole impeachment proceedings are a sham, a pile of bull shit, and instigated for purely politial reasons. Schiff's lame statement that he wished he did not have to go down this road was complete crap! He could care less. They, the Democrats, are trying to run the clock as long as possible to damage the presidents credibility before the elections, but this will backfire! Yes, they are playing the clock to keep this in the new's cycle as long as possible.The Russian collusion lie was completely torpedoed! Nadler did such a terrible job with open hearings that they resorted to this closed door, Stalinistic questioning of witnesses. They leak only damaging information about Trump. Schiff was tapped for this corrupt task. For anyone at this point to support what the Democrats or demon rats are doing is actually a part of the destruction that is happening to our Republic. It's true. In the end, Pelosi and crew will fail. Trump will be reelected. The road, they, the Democrats, have gone down will take them off a cliff! They will lose the house and lose it for a long time!
reply report
1. 92
  Jean Bakulaposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  This is how an impeachment inquiry begins. There will be open hearings next. It was established long ago that collusion isn't a crime. But obstruction is, and Trump commits it each time he bullies someone into not testifying. The Senate R majority will never remove Trump from office. But he isn't sane and should be removed. He has broken laws and made money off the Presidency long enough. He has cost us our allies, consorted with dictators, and shows no signs of wanting to have a free press, now giving press releases himself. He knows it's over. He won't submit to questioning, like Clinton, and certainly won't just quit, like Nixon. He'll go down in flames. He's already displaced 180,000 Kurds with his idiotic move to take the few troops away that we had in Syria. He did exactly what Putin wanted. That's why the Russians wanted Trump to be POTUS.
  reply report
  79
  DoubleScorpionposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  At most....we moved 50 soldiers from Syria....how did that manage to displace 180,000 people....Are you saying our forces are so tough and feared...that 50 people prevented Turkey from invading that area?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  No, the threat of reprisals by the U.S. government stopped Turkey from invading. It invaded because Trump gave it permission to invade.
  
  Otherwise, it would have done so decades ago.
  reply report
  79
  DoubleScorpionposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Ok...I don't understand this line of thought?
  
  We give other countries permission to invade?
  
  Or are you saying that Trump pretty said that he wasn't going to do anything?
  
  How long have we been in Syria?
  
  What prevented invasion prior to the US being involved?
  
  Are we to be the police force for everyone? Or do we leave once our mission is completed?
  
  After 22 years in the military...I can say...that area of the world has been in conflict forever and 3 days...and it will probably be a long time before that ever changes on a more permanent level...
  We complain for involving ourselves into other countries business and we complain when we leave them to their own devices...
  Some folks will never be happy...no matter what happens...
  
  This is one time I do actually agree with Trump...except we should have pulled our people out as soon as the mission was completed and stabilized...
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  So you're in favor of giving Putin free reign over our allies?
  reply report
  79
  DoubleScorpionposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  Putin is the President of Turkey?
  
  And no I am not in favor of anyone having reign over anyone else...including the US...
  
  I wasn't aware that Syria was an Ally...Although, Turkey is part of the UN...
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  They are both considered allies if you consider the Kurds fought alongside the US against ISIS. Trump screwed up badly by allowing Turkey to invade Syria. Apparently he didn't like the Kurds, but did love the oilfields he sent extra troops in to protect.
  
  You really don't watch any news do you. I thought you were kidding...
  reply report
  79
  DoubleScorpionposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  No...I don't watch the news...wasn't kidding..
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  It shows, DS. One has to sift through the various outlets to get the real story. But then, many choose to only watch or read what they themselves believe to be true or agree with. It's not difficult to pick these folks out by reading their comments.
  
  At least you're not one of those...
  reply report
2. 59
  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this
  How do you know who's doing the leaking? Just because the news isn't good for Trump doesn't mean it's coming from the left. I believe even worse actions on Trump's behalf is yet to come.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Shouldn't the Impeachment of a President Be Open and Transparent?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Shouldn't the Impeachment of a President Be Open and Transparent?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies