the house launches impeachment hearings

[vince284]

Yes, a representative was on a Sunday morning talk show talking about it this last weekend.

The House has taken up 51 bills, resolutions, and suspensions since January — 49 of which they’ve passed.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/24/18637163/trump-pelosi-democrats-bills-congress

 

[Arsenios]

The House has taken up 51 bills, resolutions, and suspensions since January — 49 of which they’ve passed.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/24/18637163/trump-pelosi-democrats-bills-congress

I love it when facts Trump prejudice and hate...


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

Yes, a representative was on a Sunday morning talk show talking about it this last weekend.

Most of those bills, you should know, renamed a post office in Nowheresville, Illinois, officially declared next month to be Icelandic-American Heritage month (or something similar), or approved an increase in admission fees at some museum.

That's the unromantic business of Congress and our State Legislatures, too. Occasionally, something important happens, and that is what makes the evening news.

 

[Albion]

yes, he has because they haven't reached his desk

Should I say "Nice try" at this point? :heheh:

 

[Lamb]

The House has taken up 51 bills, resolutions, and suspensions since January — 49 of which they’ve passed.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/24/18637163/trump-pelosi-democrats-bills-congress

Thanks for looking that up for me. The site I was looking at yesterday gave less and I don't believe it was accurate. I went to the congress site and it gives a lot more than 51 for passed bills. One such bill has this within it: The bill also requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit 10 years of tax returns.

 

[Lamb]

One thing that comes to mind about the whistleblower is this...the definition of Gossip: unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true.

The whistleblower did not have first hand information. It was 2nd and even 3rd hand information.

If you're going to try to go after someone at least make sure that YOU were present to witness illegal activity. Otherwise it's just gossip.

 

[NewCreation435]

One thing that comes to mind about the whistleblower is this...the definition of Gossip: unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true.

The whistleblower did not have first hand information. It was 2nd and even 3rd hand information.

If you're going to try to go after someone at least make sure that YOU were present to witness illegal activity. Otherwise it's just gossip.

yet it turned out to be true

 

[Albion]

yet it turned out to be true

You have a copy of tomorrow's newspaper??

 

[NewCreation435]

You have a copy of tomorrow's newspaper??

I don't really have to. Trump admitted it and the transcript shows he talked to another foreign leader about interfering with the election by trying to find dirt on Biden's son. Then he authorized withholding funds from the Ukraine so he could do his version of a mob shakedown. It's disgraceful and unethical

 

[Albion]

I don't really have to. Trump admitted it and the transcript shows he talked to another foreign leader about interfering with the election by trying to find dirt on Biden's son.

No, he didn't. Where do you get your "news" from anyway? It's a waste of everyone's time for you to repeat Congressman Schiff's nonsense or the latest from the Daily Beast or Vox...and then for me to correct you about it.

Of course, we could wait a day or two until the latest coup attempt has fizzled (How many have we gone through now--10 or 12?), but we still have the postings online. So may I suggest the use of sources, include links, or at least use quotes.

 

[vince284]

I don't really have to. Trump admitted it and the transcript shows he talked to another foreign leader about interfering with the election by trying to find dirt on Biden's son. Then he authorized withholding funds from the Ukraine so he could do his version of a mob shakedown. It's disgraceful and unethical

I’m not sure the timeline is correct in the postings. 400 million dollars were held up a week before the call. It was not humanitarian aid, it was military aid. The WH said they wanted to make sure whose side the new leadership was on and to talk about the corruption of the former regime. True or not, the corruption was holding the server, and whether the Biden’s interfered with Ukraine’s investigations and were forced to stop, the dirt was already there. True or not, I won’t read anymore into it until it’s investigated.

The actual mob shakedown came from Sen. Durbin against our own country.
They said the White House decided to release the aid after Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) threatened to freeze $5 billion in Pentagon funding for next year unless the money for 2019 was distributed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...93a6ca-de38-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

 

[Lamb]

What if the Whistleblower was actually a set up by the Trump administration to make the Democrats once again look bad? :disli:

 

[vince284]

I'm just wondering why "hearsay" is admissible to charge a crime to the position of the leader of the free world, but not to a drug dealer or even a jaywalker. "Hearsay" is not admissible in our court system without specific exceptions, but the impeachment proceedings began on anticipation of hearsay they didn't even have yet.

 

[Lamb]

I'm just wondering why "hearsay" is admissible to charge a crime to the position of the leader of the free world, but not to a drug dealer or even a jaywalker. "Hearsay" is not admissible in our court system without specific exceptions, but the impeachment proceedings began on anticipation of hearsay they didn't even have yet.

And along those same lines (I read the document) and saw that a couple times it stated wording like "officials understood" and "the Ukraine knew". That isn't allowed in a court of law either because it implies that they can get into the mind of other people...and you can't do that.

 

[Josiah]

Whistleblower?

"Whistleblower" by definition is someone who knows something - they saw something, witnessed something - they are witnesses.

"Gossip" by definition is someone who heard someone claim something, and not knowing if it's true, shares it nonetheless. It's hearsay. It MAY be true and may not, but the gossip doesn't know.

This person STATED in their transcript that they had no first hand knowledge of this. That makes him or her not a whistleblower but a gossip. I wish the press would use the correct word, but I realize that will never happen.

 

[Albion]

Whistleblower?

"Whistleblower" by definition is someone who knows something - they saw something, witnessed something - they are witnesses.

"Gossip" by definition is someone who heard someone claim something, and not knowing if it's true, shares it nonetheless. It's hearsay. It MAY be true and may not, but the gossip doesn't know.

This person STATED in their transcript that they had no first hand knowledge of this. That makes him or her not a whistleblower but a gossip. I wish the press would use the correct word, but I realize that will never happen.

And that's generous. If he was a plant--as is suspected--and was fed a script in order for him to file his claim, "gossip" is too mild a description.

 

[psalms 91]

As I understand it a half dozen high ranking officials told him this. The question should not be about how or from who he heard i it or what his motives are but should be is this true. You cant give bad behaviour a pass just because you dont like the source

 

[Albion]

As I understand it a half dozen high ranking officials told him this. The question should not be about how or from who he heard i it or what his motives are but should be is this true.

No, but there are laws governing whistleblowers, and if this person wasn't actually a whistleblower for not having personally witnessed anything...then he is not covered by those laws nor is his report.

 

[Lamb]

No, but there are laws governing whistleblowers, and if this person wasn't actually a whistleblower for not having personally witnessed anything...then he is not covered by those laws nor is his report.

That's what I think too. It's like someone coming here to the site saying So and So said that in a PM to so and so and then so and so said this and this and this which means you need to do something about it because it's wrong.

It's hard to give credibility to someone who just wants to tattle and then stand back and snicker.

 

[tango]

I'm just wondering why "hearsay" is admissible to charge a crime to the position of the leader of the free world, but not to a drug dealer or even a jaywalker. "Hearsay" is not admissible in our court system without specific exceptions, but the impeachment proceedings began on anticipation of hearsay they didn't even have yet.

Because everybody knows that Trump is guilty. We don't need to worry about things like trials, he kicked Queen Hillary's ambitions into the ether and so it logically follows that he must have cheated to do it, and that he must be cheating in everything else he does.