1. #4961
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    17,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    It isn't false as shown by them talking about those emails with IT technician for several weeks after being subpoenaed, with result being deletion of remaining emails and backups despite subpoena expressly requiring keeping them (and them even expressing that in initial communication after subpoena).

    Your argument is extremely weak, and based on "fact-checkers" editing out all the damning details that made Trump's claim strong.
    Those are called lies. Which Trump spreads a lot of....... None of his claims are strong because he lies too dam much.
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.

  2. #4962
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    Those are called lies. Which Trump spreads a lot of....... None of his claims are strong because he lies too dam much.
    Sorry, Clinton's lawyers facilitating deletion of her emails after subpoena that expressly called for them to be kept is a fact.

    And trying to get people to ignore facts like that is how she lost.

  3. #4963
    The Unstoppable Force Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    23,346
    Not sure what to make of this one.

    Perry confirmed previous reports that he influenced Trump to take the controversial call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that spurred the inquiry.

    “Absolutely,” Perry said. “When I saw the president I said ‘Mr. President, it's time to make this phone call.’ ”

    Perry said his goal was to “get Ukraine back in the sphere of influence in the United States” and acknowledged there were conditions to further American involvement.

    “They have to do some things. They have to show us they're going to respect the rule of law, you're going to be transparent, they're going to unbundle their midstream gas company. All of those things were part of him coming in. And I think that's completely and absolutely legitimate. That's what we're supposed to be doing,” Perry said.

    Perry said tackling corruption issues was a central tenet of Zelensky’s campaign and those efforts featured prominently in his discussion with Ukrainian leaders.

    “President Trump wasn’t going to send American money to a country that had a history of being corrupt,” Perry said.
    First of all, the phone call had nothing to do with energy. Why was Perry a driving force?

    Second of all, if Perry was involved, why was it focused on corruption? Why was it focused on military aid? Perry's not involved in either.

    Third of all, if Perry was involved, and Trump spent all the time talking about Biden and But Her Emails, why wasn't Perry confused or even outraged? Even if Perry was telling the truth, Trump didn't discuss corruption. He discussed his political opponents.

    Fourth of all, I'm not ready to believe "it was my fault" from the guy suddenly resigning.

    And of course, finallyth of all, none of what Perry said contradicts what we've heard from other people, such as Volker, Sondland and Giuliani.

    No-one is above the law.

  4. #4964
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Sorry, Clinton's lawyers facilitating deletion of her emails after subpoena that expressly called for them to be kept is a fact.

    And trying to get people to ignore facts like that is how she lost.
    We really should impeach president Clinton, Both of them.......
    My Desktop: Intel Core i5-4690K|16GB DDR3-1600|1TB HD|EVGA GeForce GTX 1070
    My Laptop: Acer Nitro 5|i5-8300H|8GB DDR4 SDRAM|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

    Check me out....Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing, Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing.

  5. #4965
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Not sure what to make of this one.



    First of all, the phone call had nothing to do with energy. Why was Perry a driving force?

    Second of all, if Perry was involved, why was it focused on corruption? Why was it focused on military aid? Perry's not involved in either.

    Third of all, if Perry was involved, and Trump spent all the time talking about Biden and But Her Emails, why wasn't Perry confused or even outraged? Even if Perry was telling the truth, Trump didn't discuss corruption. He discussed his political opponents.

    Fourth of all, I'm not ready to believe "it was my fault" from the guy suddenly resigning.

    And of course, finallyth of all, none of what Perry said contradicts what we've heard from other people, such as Volker, Sondland and Giuliani.
    You forgot the part where even if Perry advised him to do so it in no way absolves Trump of wrongdoing.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    100:1 odds that he wont
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    Okay. I'll stop sharing my views.

  6. #4966
    Quote Originally Posted by Jtbrig7390 View Post
    We really should impeach president Clinton, Both of them.......
    I really don't understand why people keep defending her.

    She lost, bury her political corpse and forget her.

  7. #4967
    I can't be the only one that thought, "oh, Rick Perry, I forgot that idiot was somehow in charge of the Department of Energy". It says a lot about the personnel that Ricky Perry wasn't particularly remarkable for incompetence relative to the others.

  8. #4968
    The Unstoppable Force Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    23,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    You forgot the part where even if Perry advised him to do so it in no way absolves Trump of wrongdoing.
    Ah, good point, I need another cup of covfefe.

    Part of what makes no sense is, those two asshats associates of Giuliani were pushing for a change in Ukraine's natural gas economy. This is what Perry should be involved with. He's been pretty quiet. You'd think he'd have something to say about that.

    No-one is above the law.

  9. #4969
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    I really don't understand why people keep defending her.

    She lost, bury her political corpse and forget her.
    Nobody is defending her, we’re all tired of your lot trying to use her as a distraction or excuse though. No matter what Hillary may or may not have done, it doesn’t excuse criminal behavior from Trump.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    100:1 odds that he wont
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    Okay. I'll stop sharing my views.

  10. #4970
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    And trying to get people to ignore facts like that is how she lost.
    Trump's entire campaign was about ignoring facts. In fact his entire presidency is about ignoring facts.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    I really don't understand why people keep defending her.

    She lost, bury her political corpse and forget her.
    The only ones bringing her up are you Trumplestiltskins. She lost. Get over it.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  11. #4971
    The Unstoppable Force Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    23,346
    Outgoing Perry says

    a) he talked to Giuliani, who again has no government role in any way, about Ukraine, and doesn't see the big deal
    b) he doesn't know if he'll comply with a subpoena or not.

    Perry at least can try to hide behind Executive Privilege, which would be Trump admitting Perry is a co-conspirator and not a scapegoat.

    No-one is above the law.

  12. #4972
    The Unstoppable Force cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    24,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Belize View Post
    Doubtful, IIRC there's been talk of wrapping this up prior to Christmas.

    I guess that's dependent on cooperation and wether or not Trump continues to incriminate himself further.
    Pelosi might wrap it up by X-mas, but the entire Impeachment process won't be over before at least the first quarter of 2020. Depends on where the GOP is at that point.

    - - - Updated - - -

    GOP running ads against Trump storied in law and order.
    No one is above the law!

  13. #4973
    That's NOT the GoP. I think they're one of the Never Trump groups - https://www.ruleoflawrepublicans.com

  14. #4974
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    First of all, the phone call had nothing to do with energy. Why was Perry a driving force?
    Perry said one of the goals was to "unbundle their midstream gas company", so he did want Trump talking about an energy issue. I did a quick search for "Ukraine unbundle gas" and it came up with a bunch of articles about the corruption within and potential reform of Ukraine's gas sector (I don't understand the issue well enough to link anything in particular that I can trust). It's an area filled with corruption and is a legitimate issue. So I don't think Perry was really in the wrong there that a call about that was worthwhile. Trump just seemed to ignore what the call should have been about.

  15. #4975
    The Unstoppable Force Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    23,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Nellise View Post
    Perry said one of the goals was to "unbundle their midstream gas company", so he did want Trump talking about an energy issue.
    Oh that, sure. Didn't come up once in the edited transcript, though, so there's no reason to believe that was part of the phone call at all. Which would make Perry a liar.

    Or, Team Trump has to admit Perry asked him to call because energy, and Trump picked up the phone and immediately said "DEEP STATE! BIDEN!" in which case, Perry's defense is meaningless.

    - - - Updated - - -

    HAHAHAHAHAHA it's running on FOX News HAHAHAHHAHAHA FOX News looked at the ad and said "yes, we'll run that" HAHAHAHAHAHA

    Is Trump's campaign going to sue them, too?

    No-one is above the law.

  16. #4976
    Quote Originally Posted by Nellise View Post
    Perry said one of the goals was to "unbundle their midstream gas company", so he did want Trump talking about an energy issue. I did a quick search for "Ukraine unbundle gas" and it came up with a bunch of articles about the corruption within and potential reform of Ukraine's gas sector (I don't understand the issue well enough to link anything in particular that I can trust). It's an area filled with corruption and is a legitimate issue. So I don't think Perry was really in the wrong there that a call about that was worthwhile. Trump just seemed to ignore what the call should have been about.
    It took 2 weeks to come up with this BS. What do you think the odds a person in the trump administration who is not under oath (or, in some cases, under oath), telling the truth to media?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  17. #4977
    The Unstoppable Force Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    23,346
    It's time for Guess the Speaker. It's always time for Guess the Speaker.

    I've got to say, this business about the Ukraine server, which no one had ever heard about until it was mentioned recently tells me — What, are we trying to exculpate Russia?

    All of our trained intelligence officials have consistently corroborated that Russia was behind the election meddling, not the Ukraine
    That's House Foreign Relations member Rooney in an interview on CNN.

    "Oh, sure, some leftist socialist commie witch hunter."

    No, he's Republican. From Florida.

    He's got a solid point, too. The House, the Senate, every US Intel agency we have and also Mueller all said "This was Russia, we have proof". Trump, by contrast, is trying to blame a false flag DNC-Ukraine partnership that, near as I can tell, came from RT.

    Incidentally, if you do a Google search like I did for [Trump conspiracy theory RT] the seventh item on the list is Wikipedia for "Fake News Website". It's hilarious.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    What do you think the odds a person in the trump administration who is not under oath (or, in some cases, under oath), telling the truth to media?
    Considering Giuliani and Perry are hiding from subpoenas and Trump had his lawyers write some of the answers for me, I would say the real question is "How far will they go to avoid being under oath in the first place?"

    Clinton lied about abusing his power on an intern. That's vile. Trump lied about extorting a country, by withholding military aid to fight Russia, in exchange for prosecuting a political rival and also exculpating Russia. That's not just vile, that's evil, and it's unAmerican. If Trump is caught lying under oath about wiping his ass with the oath of office, he's out. Not even the GOP will save him from an objective felony. Yes, they're taking steps to make sure that won't happen, "done by Christmas" etc. but they know they have good reason. Also, if they claim they take Trump at his word and don't need the real phone conversation, they know they're directly complicit too.

    No-one is above the law.

  18. #4978
    The Unstoppable Force cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    24,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Considering Giuliani and Perry are hiding from subpoenas and Trump had his lawyers write some of the answers for me, I would say the real question is "How far will they go to avoid being under oath in the first place?"

    Clinton lied about abusing his power on an intern. That's vile. Trump lied about extorting a country, by withholding military aid to fight Russia, in exchange for prosecuting a political rival and also exculpating Russia. That's not just vile, that's evil, and it's unAmerican. If Trump is caught lying under oath about wiping his ass with the oath of office, he's out. Not even the GOP will save him from an objective felony. Yes, they're taking steps to make sure that won't happen, "done by Christmas" etc. but they know they have good reason. Also, if they claim they take Trump at his word and don't need the real phone conversation, they know they're directly complicit too.
    I'm going to have to do some research on this, but I'm wondering if during the Senate Impeachment Trial, can they call witnesses? Who are under oath? Did Clinton testify in the Senate or just in front of a Federal Judge? Because if the Senate can call witnesses, well then, as per the above, that's the ballgame. Trump can't help but lie. And being under oath won't change his nature.
    No one is above the law!

  19. #4979
    The Unstoppable Force Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    23,346
    WaPo talked to a Watergate prosecutor and he said what everyone here expected.

    A prosecutor who investigated former President Nixon during the Watergate scandal said the evidence in the impeachment inquiry launched against President Trump differs Nixon’s impeachment investigation because the allegations of wrongdoing all point directly towards Trump.

    Former prosecutor Nick Ackerman told the Washington Post that, during the Watergate scandal, prosecutors struggled to pinpoint Nixon’s role in the allegations of wrongdoing leveled at the White House.

    “Here, you’ll have that in spades,” Ackerman said. “All these individuals, all testifying that this is what happened … it’s just cascading at this point.”

    Ackerman alleged that, unlike Nixon’s loyal team of aides and employees, Trump’s allies may not be as open to guarding the president’s contacts with Ukraine.

    “This is a situation where you’ve got a lot of people who are career people, extremely smart people who certainly don’t want their reputations smeared,” Akerman said. “Trump had to use these foreign services people and professionals. He didn’t speak Ukrainian and Russian. He couldn’t communicate his threat without these people. He was forced to use people whose loyalty was to the U.S. government and Constitution and not to him.

    He said the common theme among all of the witnesses, whether or not they are a trump ally, is that “You’ve got Trump clearly involved.”
    I mean, this goes into the Trump Can't Do Anything Right file. We've seen him purge the WH staff and replace them with acting people and his cronies. And he still didn't have enough. I'm wondering if this guy can even tie his own shoes at this point. He certainly can't see them.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    during the Senate Impeachment Trial, can they call witnesses? Who are under oath?
    Clinton lied under oath during the Paula Jones deposition, and also to a federal grand jury. So I get that people don't know.

    But they totally can. You're looking for Section VI.

    No-one is above the law.

  20. #4980
    The Unstoppable Force cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    24,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    But they totally can. You're looking for Section VI.
    So in the Senate Impeachment trial (and you Trumpkins need to start getting used to the fact there will be a trial), if they go by general trial rules, the prosecution presents it's case first. Which means evidence and witnesses. And Roberts will be ruling over that entire process.

    I know this is a wiki link, but here is a summary of how Clinton's trial went:

    Senate trial

    Pretrial
    The Senate trial began on January 7, 1999, with Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist presiding. The first day consisted of formal presentation of the charges against Clinton, and of Rehnquist swearing in all arguants in the trial.

    Thirteen House Republicans from the Judiciary Committee served as "managers", the equivalent of prosecutors: Henry Hyde (chairman), Jim Sensenbrenner, Bill McCollum, George Gekas, Charles Canady, Steve Buyer, Ed Bryant, Steve Chabot, Bob Barr, Asa Hutchinson, Chris Cannon, James E. Rogan and Lindsey Graham.

    Clinton was defended by Cheryl Mills. Clinton's counsel staff included Charles Ruff, David E. Kendall, Dale Bumpers, Bruce Lindsey, Nicole Seligman, Lanny A. Breuer and Gregory B. Craig.[25]

    A resolution on rules and procedure for the trial was adopted unanimously on the following day; however, senators tabled the question of whether to call witnesses in the trial. The trial remained in recess while briefs were filed by the House (January 11) and Clinton (January 13).

    Testimony
    The managers presented their case over three days, from January 14 to 16, with discussion of the facts and background of the case; detailed cases for both articles of impeachment (including excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony that Clinton had made the previous August); matters of interpretation and application of the laws governing perjury and obstruction of justice; and argument that the evidence and precedents justified removal of the President from office by virtue of "willful, premeditated, deliberate corruption of the nation's system of justice through perjury and obstruction of justice."[26] The defense presentation took place from January 19–21. Clinton's defense counsel argued that Clinton's grand jury testimony had too many inconsistencies to be a clear case of perjury, that the investigation and impeachment had been tainted by partisan political bias, that the President's approval rating of more than 70 percent indicated that his ability to govern had not been impaired by the scandal, and that the managers had ultimately presented "an unsubstantiated, circumstantial case that does not meet the constitutional standard to remove the President from office".[26] January 22 and 23 were devoted to questions from members of the Senate to the House managers and Clinton's defense counsel. Under the rules, all questions (over 150) were to be written down and given to Rehnquist to read to the party being questioned.

    On January 25, Senator Robert Byrd moved for dismissals of both articles of impeachment for lack of merit. On the following day, Rep. Bryant moved to call witnesses to the trial, a question that the Senate had scrupulously avoided to that point. In both cases, the Senate voted to deliberate on the question in private session, rather than public, televised procedure. On January 27, the Senate voted on both motions in public session; the motion to dismiss failed on a nearly party line vote of 56–44, while the motion to depose witnesses passed by the same margin. A day later, the Senate voted down motions to move directly to a vote on the articles of impeachment and to suppress videotaped depositions of the witnesses from public release, Feingold again voting with the Republicans.

    Over three days, February 1–3, House managers took videotaped closed-door depositions from Monica Lewinsky, Clinton's friend Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. On February 4, however, the Senate voted 70–30 that excerpting these videotapes would suffice as testimony, rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial. The videos were played in the Senate on February 6, featuring 30 excerpts of Lewinsky discussing her affidavit in the Paula Jones case, the hiding of small gifts Clinton had given her, and his involvement in procurement of a job for Lewinsky.

    On February 8, closing arguments were presented with each side allotted a three-hour time slot. On the President's behalf, White House Counsel Charles Ruff declared:

    There is only one question before you, albeit a difficult one, one that is a question of fact and law and constitutional theory. Would it put at risk the liberties of the people to retain the President in office? Putting aside partisan animus, if you can honestly say that it would not, that those liberties are safe in his hands, then you must vote to acquit.[26]

    Chief Prosecutor Henry Hyde countered:

    A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious ... We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President ... And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done.[26]

    Verdict
    On February 9, after voting against a public deliberation on the verdict, the Senate began closed-door deliberations instead. On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the articles of impeachment. A two-thirds vote, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict and remove the President from office. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against, and the obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.[3][27][28] Senator Arlen Specter voted "not proved"[b] for both charges,[29] which was considered by Chief Justice Rehnquist to constitute a vote of "not guilty". All 45 Democrats in the Senate voted "not guilty" on both charges, as did five Republicans; they were joined by five additional Republicans in voting "not guilty" on the perjury charge.[3][27][28]


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What's interesting is that House members form the prosecution. They are called "managers".
    No one is above the law!

Posting Permissions

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