Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-26-2019, 02:51 PM   #1
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,992
Oh Donnie, You're invited

The Judiciary Committee scheduled the hearing, “The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” for Dec. 4.

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday invited President Trump and his legal team to participate in its first public impeachment hearing next week, when lawmakers plan to convene a panel of constitutional scholars to inform the panel’s debate over whether the president’s actions amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The Judiciary Committee convened a similar panel of expert witnesses in 1998 when it began debate over whether to impeach President Bill Clinton.

"I would like you to do us a favor though"
Donald Trump

"Was there a quid pro quo?.....The answer is yes"
Ambassador Gordon Sondland

"Get over it"
Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney

"Everyone was in the loop.....It was no secret."
Ambassador Gordon Sondland
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 08:47 AM   #2
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,992
BREAKING NEWS: Trump Administration Lied About Wanting to Be Involved in Impeachment Process
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 08:50 AM   #3
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,987
BREAKING NEWS:
PeteF is now wearing diapers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sea Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 09:56 AM   #4
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles View Post
BREAKING NEWS:
PeteF is now wearing diapers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Projecting again, I see.

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I would like you to do us a favor though"
Donald Trump

"Was there a quid pro quo?.....The answer is yes"
Ambassador Gordon Sondland

"Get over it"
Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney

"Everyone was in the loop.....It was no secret."
Ambassador Gordon Sondland
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 11:20 AM   #5
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Projecting again, I see.

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Perhaps,but I can’t be sure. Projecting would be more along the lines of the giant poop you will make in your diaper after the next election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PRO CHOICE REPUBLICAN
Sea Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 11:33 AM   #6
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles View Post
Perhaps,but I can’t be sure. Projecting would be more along the lines of the giant poop you will make in your diaper after the next election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Look down, I'm sure you could tell. Or look at the box, if it says Depends, they ain't tighty whiteys

1. For impeachment and removal you don’t need a smoking gun, just evidence that proves the point, directly, circumstantially or otherwise.

2. And you don’t need a quid pro quo—just abuse of power.

3. That said, there’s plenty of smoking-gun evidence here of quid pro quo.

"I would like you to do us a favor though"
Donald Trump

"Was there a quid pro quo?.....The answer is yes"
Ambassador Gordon Sondland

"Get over it"
Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney

"Everyone was in the loop.....It was no secret."
Ambassador Gordon Sondland
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 11:58 AM   #7
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
1. For impeachment and removal you don’t need a smoking gun, just evidence that proves the point, directly, circumstantially or otherwise.

For impeachment, you only need enough votes in the House of Representatives to do it.

2. And you don’t need a quid pro quo—just abuse of power.

Abuse of power is a vague enough concept that convincing sounding narratives of all sorts can be concocted to appear to be an "abuse of power."

3. That said, there’s plenty of smoking-gun evidence here of quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo is standard procedure in foreign policy. It is one of the basic understandings in policies of cooperation. It is not a crime.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 01:03 PM   #8
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 5,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Quid pro quo is standard procedure in foreign policy. It is one of the basic understandings in policies of cooperation. It is not a crime.
It is if done for a personal favor and to hurt a political opponent in the upcoming election, not to mention it impacts our national security and probably cost lives. Personal gains are NOT the same as gains to help our national interest or security. Keep spinning, don’t you get dizzy doing it day in and day out, must hurt your head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 01:20 PM   #9
Sea Dangles
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Sea Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Look down, I'm sure you could tell. Or look at the box, if it says Depends, they ain't tighty whiteys

1. For impeachment and removal you don’t need a smoking gun, just evidence that proves the point, directly, circumstantially or otherwise.

2. And you don’t need a quid pro quo—just abuse of power.

3. That said, there’s plenty of smoking-gun evidence here of quid pro quo.
I am anxious to see justice prevail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PRO CHOICE REPUBLICAN
Sea Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 01:35 PM   #10
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Quid pro quo is standard procedure in foreign policy. It is one of the basic understandings in policies of cooperation. It is not a crime.
Abuse of power is cause for impeachment, as is obstruction.

Floridaman has told us repeatedly, he will seek and use information from foreign governments and agents to pervert our next presidential election to his personal, political, and financial benefit.

The facts—at least the broad outlines and necessary highlights—are already well known, so the question is not: What did the president say and when did he say it?

1) Sondland actually did directly tell a top Ukrainian official that military aid was conditioned, and did this after taking direction from Trump for months.

2) Many officials testified meeting was conditioned.

Those are smoking guns. The call itself is a smoking gun.

And there is a remedy............

An avaricious man, who might happen to fill the office, looking forward to … yield[ing] up the emoluments he enjoyed … might not scruple to have recourse to the most corrupt expedients.

An ambitious man, too, when … seated on the summit of his country’s honors, … would be … violently tempted to embrace a favorable conjuncture for attempting the prolongation of his power, at every personal hazard.

And it is moving forward, Floridaman has chosen to continually obstruct in every manner possible short of sending the troops to invade Congress, though he did send his stooges to storm the SCIF (which most of the members had failed to attend in any case) and conduct a sit-in or something, for the purported reason that they were not public.
When the meetings were public, he cried because he felt he had inadequate representation.
When they say OK you can have representation and can appear, he claims executive privilege without precedent.
The only claim to executive privilege during impeachment was made by Nixon and decided unanimously against the Presidency by the Supreme Court sixteen days before he resigned.

Presidents from Washington on down have acknowledged that executive privilege is inapplicable--or in any event outweighed by congressional need as a co-equal branch of government--in impeachment inquiries. Polk's 1846 statement is representative. He “cheerfully admitted” that with “a view to the exercise of [the impeachment] power,” the House “has the right to investigate the conduct of all public officers under the Government,” and its power “in the pursuit of this object would penetrate into the most secret recesses of the Executive Departments. It could command the attendance of any and every agent of the Government, and compel them to produce all papers, public or private, official or unofficial, & to testify on oath to all facts within their knowledge.” In such cases, said Polk, “all the archives and papers of the Executive Departments, public or private, would be subject to the inspection and control of a committee of [Congress] and every facility in the power of the Executive be afforded them to enable them to prosecute an investigation.”

"I would like you to do us a favor though"
Donald Trump

"Was there a quid pro quo?.....The answer is yes"
Ambassador Gordon Sondland

"Get over it"
Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney

"Everyone was in the loop.....It was no secret."
Ambassador Gordon Sondland
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 04:09 PM   #11
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Abuse of power is cause for impeachment, as is obstruction.

Floridaman has told us repeatedly, he will seek and use information from foreign governments and agents to pervert our next presidential election to his personal, political, and financial benefit.

The facts—at least the broad outlines and necessary highlights—are already well known, so the question is not: What did the president say and when did he say it?

1) Sondland actually did directly tell a top Ukrainian official that military aid was conditioned, and did this after taking direction from Trump for months.

2) Many officials testified meeting was conditioned.

Those are smoking guns. The call itself is a smoking gun.

And there is a remedy............

An avaricious man, who might happen to fill the office, looking forward to … yield[ing] up the emoluments he enjoyed … might not scruple to have recourse to the most corrupt expedients.

An ambitious man, too, when … seated on the summit of his country’s honors, … would be … violently tempted to embrace a favorable conjuncture for attempting the prolongation of his power, at every personal hazard.

And it is moving forward, Floridaman has chosen to continually obstruct in every manner possible short of sending the troops to invade Congress, though he did send his stooges to storm the SCIF (which most of the members had failed to attend in any case) and conduct a sit-in or something, for the purported reason that they were not public.
When the meetings were public, he cried because he felt he had inadequate representation.
When they say OK you can have representation and can appear, he claims executive privilege without precedent.
The only claim to executive privilege during impeachment was made by Nixon and decided unanimously against the Presidency by the Supreme Court sixteen days before he resigned.

Presidents from Washington on down have acknowledged that executive privilege is inapplicable--or in any event outweighed by congressional need as a co-equal branch of government--in impeachment inquiries. Polk's 1846 statement is representative. He “cheerfully admitted” that with “a view to the exercise of [the impeachment] power,” the House “has the right to investigate the conduct of all public officers under the Government,” and its power “in the pursuit of this object would penetrate into the most secret recesses of the Executive Departments. It could command the attendance of any and every agent of the Government, and compel them to produce all papers, public or private, official or unofficial, & to testify on oath to all facts within their knowledge.” In such cases, said Polk, “all the archives and papers of the Executive Departments, public or private, would be subject to the inspection and control of a committee of [Congress] and every facility in the power of the Executive be afforded them to enable them to prosecute an investigation.”
That's a lot of dancing around the edges. In the meantime, in the center of it all, Zelensky said he didn't know of a quid pro quo, and that Trump did nothing wrong. It would have to be proved that he is lying.

The money was given.

Trump had a history of being concerned with Ukrainian corruption and that he wanted some assurance that the money wasn't going to be more money wasted on corruption.

Burisma was a part of the corruption. Unqualified Hunter Biden was possibly (probably in fact) hired for influence. The Prosecutor who was investigating Burisma was fired at the behest of Joe Biden and replaced by another prosecutor who had the same reputation of corruption as the fired one. And the investigation of Burisma was dropped. The hiring of Hunter Biden paid off.

The notion that Trump asked for the investigations into corruption to be reopened or to continue, including the hiring of Biden, strictly for personal gain is open to interpretation, opinion, assumption, but difficult to prove, even with circumstantial evidence. When circumstantial evidence can be interpreted in different ways it is not strong enough to prove guilt and not important enough to overcome direct evidence or other circumstantial evidence that contradict it.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 04:15 PM   #12
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 5,464
Either that is the basic party line or you didn’t watch any of the testimony given, I’m putting my money on party line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 04:17 PM   #13
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
Either that is the basic party line or you didn’t watch any of the testimony given, I’m putting my money on party line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You're wrong on both counts.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 06:08 PM   #14
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 19,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
Either that is the basic party line or you didn’t watch any of the testimony given, I’m putting my money on party line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Just block him.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 06:22 PM   #15
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Just block him.
I was pointing out that PeteF's party line narrative was only one side of what will be presented in the Senate trial. It will not be a cut and dry presentation of what Pete considers irrefutable "evidence." The other side, or other party line, can be derived from direct and circumstantial evidence as well. It's not the inevitable cake walk of indisputable testimony that Pete seems to think will happen. The notion that Pete's evidence is so overwhelming and without rebuttal and contradicting narrative supported by credible evidence is a pipe dream.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 07:20 PM   #16
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,992
Floridaman’s theory is totally logical
Why ask someone you say you believe to be corrupt to investigate corruption.
Why would he even involve Ukraine since:
1. They don’t have jurisdiction over U.S. citizens for corruption cases
2. We don’t have an extradition treaty w Ukraine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 07:41 PM   #17
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 11,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
Either that is the basic party line or you didn’t watch any of the testimony given, I’m putting my money on party line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
After being asked directly, Sondland said he had zero direct evidence of a quad pro quo, in his own words, he made a presumption. But he admitted to having zero evidence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 07:46 PM   #18
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,992
If you go to bed and then get up in the morning and there’s snow, did it snow?
Do you have direct evidence?
Or are you presuming?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 07:51 PM   #19
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
If you go to bed and then get up in the morning and there’s snow, did it snow?
Do you have direct evidence?
Or are you presuming?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If Zelensky says that he felt no pressure, that he was not aware of a quid pro quo, do you have direct evidence? Or are you presuming that he said it?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 07:53 PM   #20
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Floridaman’s theory is totally logical
Why ask someone you say you believe to be corrupt to investigate corruption.
Why would he even involve Ukraine since:
1. They don’t have jurisdiction over U.S. citizens for corruption cases
2. We don’t have an extradition treaty w Ukraine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Did you sip a few Manhattan cocktails before you wrote this?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 07:57 PM   #21
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 5,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
If Zelensky says that he felt no pressure, that he was not aware of a quid pro quo, do you have direct evidence? Or are you presuming that he said it?
Gee wiz let’s think, he said no pressure because he wanted his fuc*king military aid dah.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 07:59 PM   #22
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
Gee wiz let’s think, he said no pressure because he wanted his fuc*king military aid dah.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That's a presumption, not direct evidence.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 08:12 PM   #23
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 11,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
Gee wiz let’s think, he said no pressure because he wanted his fuc*king military aid dah.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So no matter what he says, it's evidence that there was a quid pro quo.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 08:43 PM   #24
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 3,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Floridaman’s theory is totally logical
Why ask someone you say you believe to be corrupt to investigate corruption.
Why would he even involve Ukraine since:
1. They don’t have jurisdiction over U.S. citizens for corruption cases
2. We don’t have an extradition treaty w Ukraine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Hell last week they were all Corrupt Ukraines now there evidence of innocence
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 08:44 PM   #25
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 19,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
So no matter what he says, it's evidence that there was a quid pro quo.
The multitude of non partisan fact witnesses have clearly established the abuse of power Jim. Nunes pretty much had nothing but fart jokes during the intel hearings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 01:38 AM   #26
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The multitude of non partisan fact witnesses have clearly established the abuse of power Jim. Nunes pretty much had nothing but fart jokes during the intel hearings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Fake news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 06:40 AM   #27
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 5,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Did you sip a few Manhattan cocktails before you wrote this?
Are you claiming it’s false?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I would like you to do us a favor though"
Donald Trump

"Was there a quid pro quo?.....The answer is yes"
Ambassador Gordon Sondland

"Get over it"
Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney

"Everyone was in the loop.....It was no secret."
Ambassador Gordon Sondland
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 07:38 AM   #28
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 5,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
So no matter what he says, it's evidence that there was a quid pro quo.
When your country is being invaded by Russia and your people are dying, leaving you in desperate need of the promised military aid, you might say what you normally wouldn’t to get that aid delivery. The testimony confirmed he knew the aid was dependent on certain public statements, it’s very clear there was great pressure, but you go to bed at night listening to Nunes audio clips so the spin is expected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 07:54 AM   #29
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
When your country is being invaded by Russia and your people are dying, leaving you in desperate need of the promised military aid, you might say what you normally wouldn’t to get that aid delivery. The testimony confirmed he knew the aid was dependent on certain public statements, it’s very clear there was great pressure, but you go to bed at night listening to Nunes audio clips so the spin is expected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I guess you missed the obama years...this is hilarious nonsense^^^
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 08:18 AM   #30
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 5,464
Pretty sad that on the world stage at the Nato meeting, our presidential leader whines like a spoiled brat about the Impeachment and airing our dirty laundry for the world to see. In contrast Nancy attends a climate change summit in spite of a Trumps desire to pull out of any agreement to address the fake science and when asked about the impeachment, she said while overseas its policy not to speak ill of the president or discuss our internal issues. One is respectful and the other childish, not to mention he is expending the trade war and now suggest a deal with China might have to wait until after the 2020 election. Manufacturing is taking the hit and farmers will get coal for Xmas, it’s what Trump has been collecting from every stocking he has had since birth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com