Televised Impeachment Inquiry Nov. 13th. I invite ATS members to utilize this thread

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Representative: Person that represents the will of the community.
Senator: Person that represents the will of the state.
Judge: Person that represents the definition of the law.
President: Person that enforces the law.

Fundamental civics of a Representative Republic. So a member of the House should vote in accordance to the wishes of their constituents, not their party affiliation and certainly not their own conscience. But as I said, that ship sank long ago.

Constituents elect their officials based on the fact that they believe that they will best represent their interests while in office. They don't necessarily expect their elected representatives to ask their constituents permission on every process decision they make.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Pyle
So the GOP lawyer is asking the witness what another person thought.... does this guy even lawyer?

The entire case against trump, including Taylor and Kents claims, are what what trumps thoughts were into why he wanted an investigation in Burisma and 2016 election interference.

I guess its only what Trump thought if you are ignoring all the evidence and other witnesses.

The case against Trump is that he wanted these investigation for personal benefit.

Not one of these witnesses have proof of that. The just assert its their FEELINGS trump did this for personal benefit.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Should Biden be removed from consideration as a Presidential Candidate for what he did as VP? Why or why not?

What did he do?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Used a quid pro quo with a billion tax dollars to forced the firing of a prosecutor into ukraine looking into his sons company, Burisma.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Ahabstar

Should Biden be removed from consideration as a Presidential Candidate for what he did as VP? Why or why not?

What did he do?

Here's your answer, In Biden's own words. There's more, but this is good for starters.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Donald Trump, by clearly intimating that US funds to Ukraine were contingent on Ukraine investigating the Bidens.

Pretty simple.

It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?

We don't need Trump on record saying, "I am withholding this money until you investigate Biden", just as we didn't need Al Capone admitting tax evasion to throw his ass in jail.......

A preponderance of evidence is plenty to convict with in a normal scenario even without an admission of guilt from the person on trial.

of course you don’t, because it’s more comforting to listen to some former diplomat say someone intimated to another person such and such and that’s clearly of course! Hahaha what a circus.

I'm not comforted at all man. I am disturbed by what I'm hearing. I've always felt Trump is an evil awful man, and its disturbing to think I may have held too high an opinion of him.

Well you can FEEL all you want and it doesn’t make it so. Also I’m not a MAN so please use the proper gender for me ... woman! But thanks for admitting your feelings about Trump are driving your opinion of the testimony.

oops
seems the concern was only a concern when it differed with his opinion

bruised ego is a bear

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

My apologies for misgendering you.

We are in agreement, and I never intimated my feelings were truth.

a reply to: carewemust

The fact that he was filmed on camera. Bragging about it and still being protected by the mainstream news media really shows you something.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Court of public opinion though. You believe he didn't, others believe he did.

You or I won't really be able to make an determination of effect until the end of next year.....

a reply to: Ahabstar

I don't believe so, since I can't find any inference that what Biden was doing was for the purpose of personally benefiting him or Obama or any other partisan actor.

originally posted by: ChefFox
a reply to: carewemust

The fact that he was filmed on camera. Bragging about it and still being protected by the mainstream news media really shows you something.

MSM ignores it because Biden was "fighting corruption!".

Our mistake is, We just "feel" he did wrong. Opinions and feelings don't matter...unless you're Amb Taylor or Kent...lol.

a reply to: carewemust

a reply to: Grambler

No he didn't.
That tape doesn't prove what you claim, which is Biden is admitting to corruption.

Lame willful ignorance is obvious.

originally posted by: ChefFox
a reply to: Fallingdown

But in this case for Trump's impeachment i see still no wrong doing by Trump. Nor Proof. This show is becoming a sham, not a not lot of people are watching it at least where i am.

Of course there’s no proof. The Democrats don’t need proof.

On November 7, 2018 the day after the Democrats re-took the house.

I had no doubt in my mind they were going to impeach him.

Charges be damned they would’ve settled for jaywalking Impeachment was pre-ordained .

This whole # show could fall apart tomorrow but it won’t matter .

They want to set their selves up in this fraud as righteous in the view of their constituents. Knowing full and well that it will go nowhere in the Senate. But acquittal in the Senate will give them a finger to point at how corrupt and the evil the Republicans are and ignite their base for the 2020 election‘s .

It’s political strategy nothing more .

I could be wrong but I doubt it.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

It has nothing to do with feelings, despite your insistence/failed attempt to link my opinion via some silly voodoo to Trump's malfeasance.

Your 'feeling' excuse is just a misdirection because a more substiantiative argument you could make is rather vacuous.

You yourself said in this thread that you always believed Trump to be "evil". That's your opinion or "feelings".

a reply to: Fallingdown

I can understand why you are upset about the circumstances surround Trump's potential impeachment.

I personally can't really say that Clinton's impeachment was undertaken with more value though. Perhaps it just seems unfair from the lens of partisan tribalism, where in fact it would seem that impeachment for seemingly minor things seems to be the norm in US politics?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If the Senate wasn't run by people who have much themselves to hide, they would open a Biden-Ukraine corruption hearing to get to the bottom of it.

a reply to: toolgal462

For sure. How exactly does that invalidate my argument though?

dude had such problems with burisma that he would not allow the embassy to co sponsor an event with them

but an investigation is bad

lol

a reply to: Fallingdown

The Framers intended the power of Impeachment to be a political power. That’s why it was given to the House with a simple majority.

They also intended the measure to be used as a censure or in the case of extreme need, removal.

That is why there must be 2/3 of the Senate to remove.

It’s a balanced system. I’m actually surprised there haven’t been more Presidential impeachments.