President Trump To Call Pelosi's Bluff

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (107 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
    Sharlee01posted 6 months ago

    Today President Trump put out a statement that unless a vote is taken on the impeachment inquiry the White House will not cooperate with any of the impeachment congressional investigations.   

    Any thoughts?

    1. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      It's like telling a judge and jury to decide the guilt of someone in a major trial without hearing all of the evidence.

      Trump isn't cooperating regardless.

      1. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Exactly this. How can the House proceed to a vote on impeachment articles, when it hasn't concluded an investigation. Would a prosecutor indict someone on charges without doing an investigation first? Makes no sense to me.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Makes no sense to anyone, yet many House Democrats have been crying to impeach for many months.

          Perhaps they don't need evidence to impeach, particularly if it is nothing more than a political move.  Technically that is true, for it is the Senate that performs as a courtroom, and nothing but dislike is required for impeachment.

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            I think you may have misunderstood me, because I'm saying Trump is wrong and I know you'd never agree to such a thing.. My point is that it's right for the House to investigate before voting on impeachment articles, and that is what it's doing. Trump's cooperation in that investigation is not optional. It's demanded by the Constitution and the authority it confers on Congress to provide oversight of the Executive. The House could investigate this matter via the House committees alone and never impeach if it chose to. People don't get to choose when they are charged with a crime, the prosecutor does. Likewise a president doesn't get to choose when he is impeached, the House does.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              All I said is that it is not technically necessary, and that much of the House doesn't give a rat's behind whether claims are true or not - they demand an impeachment.

              And you and I both know that is true as well.

              As far as Trump's cooperation in testifying against himself, there IS the 5th amendment, you know.   Personally, I would add, given the number of so-mysterious "leaks" nowdays, that the House members should not be given anything at all of any importance for they will most surely arrange for it to be made public if they think it might help their party politically.

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                Whether it's technically necessary or not, it would be idiotic to hold a vote on impeachment articles without an impeachment inquiry. That would be like a prosecutor charging someone without knowing exactly what they are charging them with. I can only assume Rump wants a vote on the inquiry itself.

                Either way, Trump's refusal to cooperate with Congress until there is a vote is anti-constitutional. A president doesn't get to choose the manner in which Congress oversees the Executive. That's already laid out in the Constitution. An individual pleading the 5th is one thing, a president in effect putting in place a blanket ban on administration officials cooperating with Congress, is another. That is an attempt to prevent Congress from representing all the people in the country who want to know if Trump abused his authority or not. It's anti-democratic and unconstitutional.

                1. profile image61
                  Karla Jensenposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  The House of Representatives is able to begin an impeachment based on anything they determine to be an impeachable offense. In fact it is not up to anyone other than the House to determine what they can or cannot do regarding an impeachment according to the Constitution. They are the people put in charge by our Founding Fathers and nobody else.

                  In other words, the House Can do anything they want right now and be fully within their Constitutional given duties. If they decided to vote and find that the President is guilty of the charges, it will next go to the Senate for a vote.

                  So my point here is that the President needs to comply with the House if he doesn't want to be charged with obstruction of justice (an impeachable offense on its own).

                  Source: The Constitution of The United States.

                  Article I, Section 2.5: "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

      2. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

        It's my understanding president Trump is asking for a vote on the impeachment inquiry, not a vote on impeachment?

        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Even Breitbart said they voted.

          https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 … ald-trump/

          Trump wants an actual impeachment vote..

          https://nypost.com/2019/10/04/trump-to- … ment-vote/

          By forcing a vote now, he stops Democrats from any more investigations or any more whistleblowers from coming forward.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

            Not sure what Breitbart is referring to? There has as of yet been a vote on the impeachment inquiry.

            5 hours ago update CNN
            "Nancy Pelosi doesn't rule out impeachment inquiry vote"

            "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t rule out a full House vote on the impeachment inquiry even though Democratic leadership aides say, per House rules, it isn’t necessary to start the inquiry.

            “There’s nothing anyplace that says that we should. However, the people who are most afraid of a vote on the floor are the Republicans,” Pelosi told The Washington Post. “That’s why they’re beating their tom-toms like they want it, but they don’t. They have the most to be concerned about because for some of their members to say that we shouldn’t go forward with this is a bad vote.”

            https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.html

            Here are two other links that I derived my information from. 

            https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/ … tic-stunt/

            https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/76720517 … -lawmakers

    2. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Is that like when he said he would reveal his tax returns after he was elected? Just another BS stalling tactic.

      Who would continue to fall for the lying con man's BS? Certainly not Nancy Pelosi.

      1. Live to Learn profile image79
        Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Maybe, maybe not. Nancy seems bamboozled by Schiff's lies.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Lol, riiiigghhhhht. She listens to Trump lie practically hourly so I'm confident she is not bamboozled. That describes Trump defenders perfectly, though.

          1. Live to Learn profile image79
            Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            Trump defenders? Is that the term you use to justify biased, hypocritical comments you make?

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Mexico will pay for the wall. I'll share my tax returns after the election. I'll cooperate after a House impeachment vote.

              How does that BS taste going down?

              My gawd.

      2. promisem profile image98
        promisemposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        It's like when he insisted that:

        - Mexico would pay for the wall
        - Our economy would start growing at 6% a year
        - He stopped North Korea from building ballistic missiles
        - He would clean up the DC swamp

        He has lost all credibility with 62% of America (and growing).

        https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/ … on-1487905

        1. Randy Godwin profile image91
          Randy Godwinposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Trump is simply delaying the inevitable. It wonk work as it didn't for Nixon. Trump's taxes will be scrutinized and he's definitely hiding something or he wouldn't be trying so hard to hide them. What's he afraid of Trumpster's?

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            "...he's definitely hiding something or he wouldn't be trying so hard to hide them."

            You mean like Biden and friends?

        2. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Yep.

      3. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

        You may be correct he does say things and sometimes the last we hear of it. It will be interesting to see if the White ouse follows through with the letter.

        I have a feeling he will, due to being so quick to release his phone call with Zelinsky.

        In regards to Pelosi, she is very aware of impeachment protocol, and most likely would have preferred to collect more info before making her statement on the impeachment inquiry.

    3. The Minstrel profile image80
      The Minstrelposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      It's a win win move. Either way, Trump wins. If they vote it down, then no impeachment and we wait for the Barr-Durham report on real corruption. If they vote to impeach, then it goes to the Republican controlled senate where they can expand the investigation to all the players. Biden, Clapper, Brennan, Schiff, and others can be brought before the Senate to be questioned and exposed. It's a lose lose for the Democrats. They seemed to have stepped into a trap. Get your popcorn out. it's going to get interesting.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Your view sounds very much right on...  I think we are all in for quite a show. It appears Dem's are having what they may believe is one last-ditch effort.

        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Your position is to the right of Tucker Carlson. Like I said to GA, that's very far right.

          Likewise, Republican senators are now coming out against Trump. He is doomed.

          https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4645 … raine-call

    4. Valeant profile image96
      Valeantposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      That'll add obstruction counts to the articles of impeachment.  For Nixon, a formal investigation began in October, a full vote to give power to the House Judiciary Committee was not voted on until February of the following year.  It wasn't until July of that year that the three articles of impeachment were approved in the House (obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress).  Remember these, they will likely be the same ones Trump gets.

      Have you considered that by bringing it to a vote, McConnell could then fast-track a trial before all the necessary evidence is collected much like he did with the Kavanaugh hearings?

      Saw this today, and I definitely agree with it - A lot of people believe that professional wrestling is real, that's the only way I can explain Trump's support group.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Why do you have the need to explain Trump's support group?  It seems you need not add an insult to your otherwise acceptable comment.

        You may want to worry about just how big that support group is.

        " McConnell could then fast-track a trial before all the necessary evidence is collected"

        The Dem's have been talking impeachment for three years now. One would think they would have something by now? This Ukraine accusation is really weak on any form of intent or factual information. Have you considered how ridiculous this all appears?

        1. Valeant profile image96
          Valeantposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          I explain Trump's support group for the same reasons people have to be de-programmed from a cult.  It's clear to normal people the alternate reality being fed through conservative media, as evidenced by the fact that even though Trump admitted to soliciting foreign assistance to hurt a political opponent, something clearly illegal, you call his illegal action 'really weak' and say openly breaking the laws of our country appears ridiculous.

          https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … y-theories

          1. Randy Godwin profile image91
            Randy Godwinposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            It turns out Rudy and Rick Perry were trying to place Trump allies on the advisory board of Ukraine's Natural gas company..

            And Soundland contributed a million bucks to Trump's campaign through 4 different LLC's and was appointed head of this mission. Damn, what a conman we have for POTUS!

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Randy, you learn well "It appears"...  Seems many have learned to take  It appears as truth?  Please take the time to take a look at this phenomenon.

            2. GA Anderson profile image91
              GA Andersonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              How does that compare to the claim, (fact?), that the Obama administration set up Democrat-associated advisors to Ukraine's government recovery efforts; Greg Craig, Tad De Vine, Tony Podesta, Mark Penn, John Anzalone, Joel Benenson - all Clinton/Obama associates?

              GA

              1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                Randy Godwinposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                Is advising the govt different than placing Trump campaign contributors in control of the natural gas company? They get lucrative deals sent their way. What did those you mention receive in turn, GA? And what do you make of the WH blocking Sondland from testifying before Congress? What is Trump afraid of...the truth?

                1. GA Anderson profile image91
                  GA Andersonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  Since I don't know what the "advisors" did, or what the purpose of getting those folks onto the gas company's board/management(?) was, I can't answer your first question. Your guess about "lucrative deals" may or may not be right - it's just a guess.

                  I don't know what to think of the Sondland thing yet. But I do think the recent reporting that he called Pres. Trump before he answered Bill Tayor is a plus for him. Rather than assume something, he went straight to the source to get the answer.

                  GA

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    So why is the WH blocking Sondland's testimony, GA? You still think they have nothing to hide? They're willing to be charged with Obstruction of Justice rather than have Sonland tell the truth in my opinion.

                    Sondland did call Trump to see what sort of lie he had to tell Taylor in regard to the "deal" the had been discussing Clearly Taylor was alarmed by the information. Taylor and the ousted ambassador will straighten this out if Trump allows them to.  Fat chance he'll allow them to testify if he can prevent it. His goose is almost ready.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

            "Normal people"  "de-programmed from a cult."  When someone leads with these kinds of words it shows little respect for other's opinions. You clearly have a problem. I don't want to become involved with anyone that is clearly baiting.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              It's called "dividing the country".

            2. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              It's called "dividing the country" and can be quite effective if you can but convince your side that they are "normal" while all other are just "deplorables".  Or perhaps "cultists".

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, I shar your sentiment.  Sad to see such groupthink happening in America. I have good faith it will pass.

                1. Valeant profile image96
                  Valeantposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  What's truly sad is how people can deny the obvious violation of our laws because they are told to by their leader and his propaganda machine.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    Please offer proof that Trump broke any law. Provide facts not what you have been to believe is factual.  Please keep it to one example. I am not wasting my time on a crazy list... ONE

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    Volation of the law, as a rule, comes with prosecution. I this case impeachment due to the person you are accusing is the president.  Did I miss something has Congress voted to impeach?

                    "Leader" --- Propaganda ---  ir's not me that buys into groupthink... It's you

  2. Live to Learn profile image79
    Live to Learnposted 6 months ago

    Glad to hear it. I heard the democrats are avoiding that vote because if they hold it there are actual rules they must abide by. Without it, they basically completely get to write the rules as they go and prohibit Republican participation.

    I'd insist Schiff be replaced. He's proven himself to be a biased liar.

  3. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 6 months ago

    I think President Donald Trump is saying, "Charge me with a crime or let me walk."

    They really have nothing.  I don't think the Democrats have the slightest idea what they've done to themselves and their party.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

      I have to agree, I think he hopes to have the right to defend himself and put this one behind him.  I also agree the Dem's have become a party that is unrecognizable to what they were. They sm to be spinning out of control?

      1. promisem profile image98
        promisemposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        It seems to me that Trump is spinning out of control when he calls for the impeachment of Mitt Romney, a Republican Senator who will be voting on Trump's impeachment.

        What Romney said:

        "When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China’s investigation is his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains credulity to suggest that it is anything other than politically motivated," Romney tweeted Friday.

        "By all appearances, the President’s brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling," he added.


        https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … ody-please

        That's called courage and integrity. It's the kind of person who should be President and not Donald Trump.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

          You are going to get a good laugh at this --- I could never stand Mitt. I voted for Obama....No true

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            My jaw just dropped. You are far more independent than I thought.  wink

            I attended a Mitt rally in 2012 and liked what I saw and heard. But he didn't have the charisma of Obama.

            That said, I'm suspicious that he is positioning himself to go for the 2020 Republican nomination.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, he just most likely is thinking of giving it one more try...   Hey, who are the Dem's left in the race... LOL

        2. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          This.

  4. RJ Schwartz profile image90
    RJ Schwartzposted 6 months ago

    An Impeachment is done by Congress, not by a few unhappy members of the legislative body.  Nancy can't walk the fence this time.

  5. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 6 months ago

    With impeachment of a president there is a precedent.  During the impeachment of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton the house took a formal vote to begin an impeachment inquiry.  What President Donald Trump is asking is for the house to honor this precedent.  Why won't this Congress do such a thing?  Because THEN there would be an official record of where they stood when it came to impeachment.  Too many Democrat members of Congress are in districts that support President Donald Trump. During this recess they got a lot of heat from their voters.  So, I think it's right to ask for a vote before complying with an impeachment inquiry.  It is one more reason the Democrats don't seem to be too serious about this.

    1. GA Anderson profile image91
      GA Andersonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Coincidentally I was listening to a CNN segment with Rep. Meeks as I was reading your comment.

      According to CNN you are right, it is commonly viewed as a precedent because that is what they did with Nixon and Clinton.

      CNN asked why not follow that precedent this time. Rep. Meeks' answer was something like; "We are not ignoring precedent, this is not going to be a long-drawn-out process, we are just looking to see if the White House will cooperate."

      CNN asked again why they, (the committee), are ignoring the precedent. Also, CNN asked if they were doing it to avoid giving the Republicans the legal Rights such a vote would provide.

      Rep. Meeks didn't have any answers beyond, "no" and this will be a quick process.

      Sounds like you might be right Mike. It also sounds like that first NPR blurb about this issue that I posted here might be right too.

      So, they might not be 'required' to hold that vote, but why ignore precedent and not do it this time?

      *that CNN/Meeks segment will probably be on youtube later for more details.

      GA

  6. Bellecherry78 profile image60
    Bellecherry78posted 6 months ago

    By the American People

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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 ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis 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 LibrariesJavascript 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 SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis 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 YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis 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 LoginYou 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)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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 AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore 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 PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)