The People's House Openly Examines Misconduct: Happy Trump Impeachment Hearings Day!!

Micawber said:
I'd like to chime in on Turley's misrepresentation of what constitutes assent or an agreement and the requirement of proof.

I will use an example of a valid contract:

I walk into a crowded grocer that I frequent, the line is long with many people in line with carts full. I only have a single apple.
I catch the grocers eye and point to the apple as I walk towards the exit, and I point to the apple and he looks at me
and nods and I exit, neither having said a word to the other, much less having declared a "quid pro quo," negotiated the price, or paid the consideration.
Yet I have just entered into a legally binding contract to pay a reasonable price to the grocer for an apple. I didn't say, I'm tired and I just want an
apple can I have it and pay you later. He didn't say, OK, that's reasonable, I hereby sell you the apple. I don't need Trump to have SAID
quid pro quo. I don't need to have Zelensky affirm he understood Trump to mean quid pro quo. I can, do and will infer the meaning based
upon the totality of the circumstances and what people said he said, how he acts, Trump's custom and practices etc etc...

The transcript MORE than establishes a quid pro quo demand under existing legal theory, not that Turley or Gaetz should care about the law or anything.

None of you clown Repukes get this because Trump may as well be your baby boy in a murder trial and you don't WANT to believe it.
Click to expand...

"The totality of the circumstances" is exactly the point. Cons don't do that, they cherry pick words and phrases.
 
Darth Omar said:
That was a bad witness for Democrats.

She could barely conceal her disdain for Trump or his supporters and dragged Trump’s underage son into it.

That’s going to turn off independents.
Click to expand...

Maybe trump dragging Greta Thunberg into his twitter rants will turn off independents, also.
 
Democrats are so desperate that one of their biased witnesses is now attacking the President’s 13-year-old son.
 
volsrock said:
Democrats are so desperate that one of their biased witnesses is now attacking the President’s 13-year-old son.
Click to expand...

Her comment was uncalled for and inappropriate but it wasn't an "attack", don't be silly.

"The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the President can name his son Barron, he can't make him a baron," said Karlan..."
 
christiefan915 said:
Her comment was uncalled for and inappropriate but it wasn't an "attack", don't be silly.

"The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the President can name his son Barron, he can't make him a baron," said Karlan..."
Click to expand...

Shows she is a fucking hack that will say anything to get Trump impeached!
 
When Collins talks about 'what the American people want,' he's only talking about Republicans. I guess, for him, those American People who vote otherwise simply don't exist.
 
Last edited:
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
It’s both rushed and ‘slipshod’ for reasons that should be obvious.

There should have never been anything with the word ‘impeachment’ in it *until* actual facts were in hand and material witnesses were heard from. All Democrats have are opinions of witnesses—none of them have any actual evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Trump.

With Nixon the break-in was a hard fact. With Clinton he clearly lied about not having sex with that woman. Those were facts that were beyond debate. The only debate to be had was whether they rose to impeachable offenses. And here Democrats are rushing to get Trump impeached in the fact-gathering stage. What if Democrats get to the Senate only to find out they don’t have what they think they had?

Here’s a suggestion for Democrats: don’t go to the senate with your case still in the fact gathering stage.
Click to expand...

I would agree that the Democrats should slow down, not worry about the primary season, and gather far more evidence before sending it over. What have they got to lose? The impeachment news is dominating the news cycle which is a welcome change from having it be all about what Trump decides it will be. And the more it gets talked about the more time it has to sink in for those who do not recognize either the misconduct or the evidence pointing to the President.

I disagree that the word impeachment was initiated too early. When Nancy Pelosi understood the initial evidence she had no other choice. Clearly there has been misconduct by the President of a very serious matter which cannot be overlooked. And it cannot wait until the next election because the nature of the misconduct affects that election. The President sought foreign intervention into that election. And it is a pattern of abuse. He previously sought Russia, and later China to interfere with our elections. If he is not stopped he will do it again. And there is also a pattern of obstruction which began in the Mueller Investigation and continued into the Ukriane Scandal. This misconduct cannot be overlooked. Pelosi had no choice.
 
Hello christiefan915,

christiefan915 said:
"The totality of the circumstances" is exactly the point. Cons don't do that, they cherry pick words and phrases.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I was amused at the one where they quote somebody saying they heard the President say no quid pro quo, so that to them means there wasn't one.

Just because he said it.

That's good enough for THEM!

Amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top