• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • Embarrassed
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Grumpy
  • Happy
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Poorly
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
    Results 21 to 26 of 26

    News Center - Thread: support for impeachment growing

    1. #21
      tango's Avatar
      tango is offline Bronze Member
      Valued Contributor
      Married
      ... and you shall live ...
       
      Mood:
      Bemused
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Location
      Elsewhere
      Posts
      8,110
      CH Cash
      10,509
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (22,406,710 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      35,282
      Level
      49
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      96.48%
      Rep Power
      858
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      Perhaps it's EASY for the Liberals....


      Seems to ME Trump DID (twice now) suggest that foreign governments should look into a matter, a matter involving the son of one of the 19 running for the Democrat Party nomination....


      Okay, No need for hearings or testimony or witnesses. Seems to me he DID do that. He doesn't seem to deny that.


      Easy. Now all the libs need to do is provide the law that makes that a felony; quote the law that says that's a "high crime" (understood for the last 130 years as a felony). This should not take more than 24 hours. They'd still need to vote on whether to take action on that felony but they'd have their basis.


      What they might do, however, is go back to the universal mistake Congress did in the 1860s', universally condemned as a mistake never to be repeated. A standing president was impeached not for ANY crime (much less the required "HIGH CRIME" - at least a felony - that the Constitution requires). A president was impeached for POLITICAL reasons (not even a campaign law violation). Perhaps the libs will want to repeat this mistake universally condemned - uninterested in how the Republicans can equally use this against them, we'd be going back to the 1860's where the party in power can impeach a president for no crime, just something politically unaccepted by the other party.


      After the whole mistake of the 1860's, it was universally upheld that at least an obvious FELONY is needed. Nixon had done that (he resigned before he could be impeached). Clinton did that (admitted it; he knowingly lied to a grand jury - a very serious felony). If suggesting a foriegn government investigate the son of a potential opponent in an upcoming election is a felony, then BINGO - Poloski is right, we're done. No need for any hearings, testimony, investigation. Just quote the law. If it's not then, well, we're done. Voters next year can decide whether what he did was appropriate and weigh that in their vote (it's how democracy works).


      Either way, I think we're done.


      .
      It should be easy to prove The Donald has committed high crimes. He was the one who kicked Queen Hillary's ambitions into the ether. If that isn't an impeachable offense I don't know what is.
      "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law" - Aleister Crowley

      "If you love me, obey my commandments" - Jesus Christ

      The Bible comes as a complete package. If we want to pluck verses out of context so make them mean what we want them to mean, if we want to ignore the passages that are inconvenient to our outlook, we should be intellectually honest enough to throw our Bibles in the trash and admit we are following Crowley and not Christ.

    2. Likes Albion liked this post
    3. #22
      Andrew's Avatar
      Andrew is offline Expert Member
      Moderator
      35
      Mood:
      Awesome
       
      Join Date
      Aug 2017
      Posts
      4,181
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      10,520
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      21,542
      Level
      41
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      2.94%
      Rep Power
      626

    4. #23
      jsimms435's Avatar
      jsimms435 is offline Expert Member
      52
      Married
      Mood:
      Cool
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Posts
      3,926
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      9,863
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      19,514
      Level
      39
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      40.42%
      Rep Power
      534
      there appears now to be a second whistleblower with firsthand knowledge about the call in question.

      https://www.newsweek.com/second-whis...wledge-1463428

    5. #24
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is offline Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      3,605
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      18,529
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      24,198
      Level
      43
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      0.78%
      Rep Power
      722
      Quote Originally Posted by jsimms435 View Post
      there appears now to be a second whistleblower with firsthand knowledge about the call in question.
      The first "whistleblower" wasn't actually a whistleblower, so I doubt that this one (or as many as they create) is anything more than another party worker like the first was.

    6. Likes tango liked this post
    7. #25
      Lämmchen's Avatar
      Lämmchen is online now God's Lil Lamb
      Administrator
      Supporting Member
      Community Team
      52
      Married
      Gloria In Excelsis Deo
       
      Mood:
      Cool
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      20,430
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      217,083
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (439,008 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      243,670
      Level
      99
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      2.8%
      Rep Power
      1013
      Quote Originally Posted by jsimms435 View Post
      there appears now to be a second whistleblower with firsthand knowledge about the call in question.

      https://www.newsweek.com/second-whis...wledge-1463428
      If the transcript of the call was revealed, then how could this whistleblower have anything to say that's different? Unless it's a story along the same lines that Schiff gave?
      "Christianity does not require more work but more trust." Pr. Jonathan Fisk
      "Bearing fruit does not make you a branch. A branch is a branch because it grows from the vine." Pr. Jonathan Fisk
      "A Christian's life is not defined by what the Christian does. It is defined by Christ and what He has done for us." Pr. Rolf David Preus

    8. #26
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      8,800
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      122,233
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      90,080
      Level
      70
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      99.42%
      Rep Power
      1008
      Quote Originally Posted by Albion View Post
      The first "whistleblower" wasn't actually a whistleblower, so I doubt that this one (or as many as they create) is anything more than another party worker like the first was.

      The first was a gossiper. It MAY be this one is a whistleblower (we'll see). But that seems completely irrelevant. We already KNOW that Trump requested two countries to investigate the dealings of a son of one of 19 candidates running for the nomination of the Democrat Party. No need for testimony or gossipers or whisleblowers or hearings, we all already know he did that (he ADMITTED it). All these noises are just diversions; entirely unnecessary.

      All we need is the law this violates. The Constitution requires a "HIGH CRIME" committed in office. A crime requires a broken law, a high crime suggests a felony at the least. Just quote the law. As was done with Clinton when he lied to a grand jury (a law.... a felony). If what he did is a HIGH CRIME, then all that is needed is the law he violated and proof that it's at least a felony. Everything else is just noise, just diversions, just evidence he evidently didn't commit any crime. He may have done something politically inappropriate (I think so) but in a democracy, we deal with that with the voting booth (it's dictatorships that do it otherwise).




      .
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    9. Likes Lämmchen liked this post

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •