Some Names, Some Investigations

Politics
61

mcghann has nothing to do with impeachment, its a russia hoax case.

Kupperman was to be heard in dec. the dems withdrew. who’s fault is that?

The evidence they had was all based on one mans “presumptions”. Sorry, but that ain’t enough. Did the President delay the aid? Yes. Nothing wrong with that Did the President ask Ukraine to investigate 2016 election interference? Yes Nothing wrong with that. Did the President Ask Zalensky to contact the AG so we could assist them with what on its face appears to be at a minimum a conflict of interest by a former US VP and could signal real corruption? Yes, Nothing wrong with that. It’s the “why” your hero’s tried to impeach him for. The why they alleged but did not come anywhere near proving. One man’s presumption repeated by others who heard it is not “proof” of anything.

2 Likes
62

The McGahn case is a test of Executive Privilege.

The Kupperman case was predicated on the same argument.

Kupperman was waiting for the outcome of the McGahn case which will take more Months to decide.

I know that this whole story that the House Democrats didn’t want to call witnesses is appealing, but it is not a story that is told in good faith.

63

you mean like when he said under oath that if he thought it was in the national interest he would lie?

2 Likes
64

kupperman was waiting on nothing. arguments were scheduled for dec until the house withdrew its subpenea. It also is not the same argument, kuppermans case hinges on the validity of the subpeneas and immunity from compulsion, not executive privilege.

I know you have to run with what your liberal masters have fed you, but claiming kupperman and mcghann are linked is not a story told in good faith

1 Like
65

Under what context? National security? Exposing classified info?

66

Facts no longer matter. Only feelings and emotions.

1 Like
67

Wrong question. The correct question is does Bolton believe getting rid of Trump would be in the national interest. Fairly certain we know the answer to that since WWVI never started.

68

Arguments for the case were set to Start to take place in December.

The entire process would have probably gone on into the Summer.

And yes… the McGahn case and the Kupperman case are essentially about Executive Privilege.

And the “liberal masters” comment is just super stupid.

Dear God… just once have a discussion like an adult.

69

Facts do matter. Like it’s a fact that its the house’s job to gather impeaching evidence, and if they choose not to because pursuing Justice will take too long it is not incumbent on the Senate to complete the process for them.

1 Like
70

It is if you think what Trump did was impeachable. L. Alexander, who is retiring and can say and do as he wishes, voted against witnesses because he believed everything the articles alleged were true…but that it did not reach the level of impeachment.
At worst, it might be proven that he wanted an investigation of Biden and was willing to delay funds to Ukraine to get it. When you put that in the backdrop of all the three years of political investigations, all started based on allegations only, there is really nothing remarkable about what he did.
And yes, that back drop should be considered. As we have been told, these are not criminal allegations, these are political allegations. “Impeachment is a political process”.

71

Really?

More impactfull than a president who LIED under oath and wasn’t removed from office? Really?

72

Was it not also the Justice Dept.'s job to do its own investigation due to the whistle blower complaint?

The House was forced to do their job, as Barr refused to do his.

Also, the impeachment process is similar to the indictment process.

The House proved the charges were worthy of a trial.

The Senate refused to conduct an actual trial.

We are a nation of the rule of law. And the Senate simply crapped on that idea.

Defending this, is literally anti-American.

73

yes, they were set to start and the house withdrew.

then impeach him in august and give the leftist base a harvest festival present instead of a half baked xmas cake. They created their own deadline, and their own mess.

no, they are not. one is predicated on privilege after receiving a valid congressional subpoena. the other challenges on 2 grounds. the validity of the subpoena, and immunity from compulsion.

Hey, if you don’t like it, next time don’t accuse me of arguing in bad faith.

1 Like
74

So why didn’t the house wait until it had gone through the courts to see if they could have the e-mails and make Bolton Testify? What was the rush?

75

Because the seditious Dems demanded it? I don’t know really since it’s not constitutionally required so you’ll have to ask McConnell. :woman_shrugging:

Everyone knew the end result would be acquittal so why not ask the Dems why the hell they did it in the first place. Some call it a temper tantrum of the results of the 2016 election, I call it treason!

2 Likes
76

So you don’t want to know how this hoax’s got started? How about great Russian hoax’s?

77

No, you misrepresented what Bolton said. He said he would absolutely lie to protect national SECURITY. What patriotic American wouldn’t if the situation required it of him? He did not say national “interest”. He was talking about saving lives by not exposing classified intel just as I suspected. I don’t like Bolton, but he is not a pathological lier like Trump.

78

It’s the senate’s job to determine that by having an actual trial and not a ■■■■■■■ kangaroo court with a predetermined outcome.

79

FBI is to busy chasing after pee tapes and Roger Stone to do any real investigation that might hurt themselves within their own party.

2 Likes
80

When the holder of the highest office in the govt. is protected by the very body directed by the Constitution and their own pledges to judge him impartially in the event of an impeachment trial? Absolutely. The potential future ramifications of setting such a precedent cannot be understated.

1 Like