North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner

Impeachment of Trump...

27K views 168 replies 8 participants last post by  Plainsman 
#1 ·
Here is a serious question that needs to be asked.

Lets say articles of impeachment get brought up against Trump.... for what ever reason. Even if it is on party lines... or no real fact based anything....

Should all the people in congress that have come out since 2017 and said "Impeach him".... Should they be allowed to even vote?

I mean there are a lot of Congress people who have since Trumps day 1 in office have said they will work to impeach him..... Pelosi, Schiff, AOC, Omar, Waters, Swalwell, Green, etc.... Should these people be recused or asked to be recused??? Should they even get a vote?

These are people who before even any evidence was produced or charges drawn stated they will impeach the president.

Honestly.... isn't this bias? Should they be allowed to vote. Because it seems they are predetermined and are not taking a clear look at it. That facts might not matter to them. Is this how we want our country ran???

Same goes for anyone on the Republican side who states something like... I will never vote to impeach Trump. Should they be allowed to vote??

I mean jurors, judges, etc. Get thrown out or taken off trials if they have any inkling of bias or predetermined facts before a case.

This is an honest question and shouldn't be partisan. It goes along with Due process and the foundation of our judicial system or our country's belief of "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY".... Because some of these people think he is guilty before he was even in office. Same goes for people who will cry he is innocent before seeing the facts.

But like I am asking.... should people who showed bias and wanting impeachment from day 1 when he took office.... should they be allowed to vote on impeachment?
 
See less See more
#27 ·
None of this is about what really happened, it is designed to smear Trump's 2020 campaign in the hopes that whatever buffoon they run has half a chance. They need to dupe enough people into believing they have something other than smoke and mirrors.

Personally I think it's not going to work, but in this day and age, with the number of morons out there that believe everything the mainstream media feeds them, who knows.
 
#28 ·
So now back to my original topic on this thread....

So last night at the debate many of the canidates called Trump: A Criminal, He should be impeached, etc.

Should these people be allowed to vote on impeachment? Remember many of them called for it before any facts, witnesses, testimony, etc have been collected. Should these people be allowed to vote? I honestly think this is an issue. Because it is the same as a jury.... the ones who have preconceived idea's are thrown out as jurors. I also will say the same to anyone who was saying.... Trump is innocent, never done anything wrong, etc.... before any evidence, testimony, etc has been presented.

But it just shows you how people just hate him because he isn't a normal politician. :beer:
 
#29 ·
I think the Dems have backed themselves into a corner. They have miscalculated the effectiveness of a smear campaign. Their constituents want more than that and if they fail at this attempt of impeachment may loose the faith of their voters and entrench Trump supporters. I don't care for some of the things he does but if the Dems win I'm buying stock in lube cause everyone in this country is going to be bending over and taking it from behind.
 
#30 ·
I forgot this little bit of knowledge...

If people think this is a fair process. Schiff on Tuesday night after a long day of questioning (ended at 10 pm). Told the Republicans on the committee or doing this hearing that if they wanted to use a certain transcript that they could view it after 10 pm go look at it to use in the next day questioning. So he gave them less than 12 hours to look at it and prepare questions for the next day. Is that a fair process? Remember that the Republicans can only look at these materials with Dem staff available and one at a time :bop:

Seems fair and due process doesn't it..... :puke:

Yet with out that transcript they totally showed how this is still a sham. :bop: :bop:
 
#31 ·
I just watched a bit again...talk about leading witnesses.... Schiff asked the witness who previously stated he only heard portions of a phone conversation of which the content was unclear if he had read the transcript ( to refresh his memory) and what his conclusions are about that conversation. This is Paramount to witness tampering. Giving them the details of a conversation they otherwise would not have been able to accurately understand. Interpretations after the fact really are not eyewitness evidence.
 
#33 ·
Today so far....

Holmes and Hill testified that they basically upset by the direction of the policy in Ukraine.

It is the same stuff... assumptions and presumptions. The listening in on a call in a crowded area across the table from sondland….. assumed that the investigations = Biden. Also assumed or presumed Burisma = Biden or was code for that. :puke: :puke: BTW... the two people sitting next to sondland didn't hear a thing. :poke: Also watch CNN try to replicate the call... CUoMO failed big time. :bop:

Let alone what we just found out about Burisma and its now legal troubles.... :poke: :poke:
 
#34 ·
Another aspect I just read about the "fairness" of all of this.

Schiff just called a break after all of the Dem's questioning so Congressmen/women can go vote.... Nothing is up for vote today.... :puke: :puke:

I am sure it is so he can give his press conference and spit more half truths. Just like he has the past few days. Then in the second half of questioning... it all gets debunked. Just like it has everyday. :bop:

I will wait and see about today... but so far with all of it... it has been debunked. :thumb:
 
#36 ·
Hill testified...

1. She wasn't on the July 25th Call.
2. She wasn't even apart of the NSC other than being on the payroll
3. She handed over her duties to Morrison
4. She helped with a "package" of stuff to handle with the call but doesn't know how much of that "package" was used during the call. (So helped to prep for the call but didn't know if the stuff she worked on was used.)
5. Only read the transcript once it was released.

So hill only can assume or presume stuff. No direct knowledge.

Now even more from hill....

She testified...

1. That they were hesitant to schedule meetings with the new Ukraine president because he might not get his whole cabinet
2. Worried that he wouldn't be able to implement anti-corruption in the Ukraine
3. That No new investigations were opened into the Biden's.... NO NEW... so what the DOJ was going like I have stated all along. :bop:
4. Trump and Ukrain did have a meeting... and aid was released.

So again... no new facts just all assumptions and presumptions.
 
#37 ·
Hill testified...

she "heard" that Sondland met with Rudy.... when yesterday Sondland said he has never held a meeting with Rudy. Rudy released a statement they have never had a meeting. Have only shook hands years ago.
- Is she lying?

She also in her opening statement said that people didn't believe that Russia interfered in out elections.... when infact that the intel committee published a non partisan report stating that Russia did. So again she "heard".... so is that a couple of things that she heard was false?
 
#38 ·
Holmes testified...

1. Some of the call was word for word other parts of it he didn't hear.
2. Said he told the Emb Taylor…. Taylor doesn't remember him telling anything... and testified to that.

He also expressed opinion, assumption, and presumptions about everything.

He did make a good case about aid and how Ukraine needs it. Which is good and they got the aid.
 
#39 ·
So where are all these great Republican witnesses that have been subpoenaed and refuse to testify???? Why aren't they in front of the committee and clearing all this up? So we ALL can hear that the LYING Mighty Trump did nothing wrong.

Could it be that the Clown Prince has A LOT to hide???

Come on Republicans. Lets get to the truth of all this one way or another.

This guy deserves to be impeached and removed from office.
 
#41 ·
It doesn't seem he is hiding anything. At least according to the schiff show witnesses.
I heard it from a friend who....... heard it from a friend whoo....... heard it on the schiff show he was messin around..... :puke:

Oh and we should vote Trump out and replace him with one of those dumb arses that were on the stage last night. :laugh:
 
#42 ·
Ken,

How about Schiff not allowing any of the witnesses that the Republicans wanted to call in.

I would agree 100% with you if this whole process was fair. BUT IT ISN'T!! That is why the subpoena people are not coming in.... well not all of them. Some have showed up and were supposed to be "damaging"... yet they were not. :poke:

So after hearing all of this testimony Ken you still think he should be impeached over this phone call???

Lets again look at the hard evidence.... again... HARD EVIDENCE.
1. No quid pro quo (All witnesses have said that)
2. No Bribery (all witnesses said this)
3. No Extortion (all witnesses said this)
4. All people on the call (FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE) stated nothing wrong.

What they did say is that they... Believed, Assumed, presumed, or heard 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand, etc. A couple of witnesses even during questioning mentioned that they could have been mistaken and took things the wrong way. :bop:

Then the "BOMBSHELL" by Sondland about a meeting and quid pro quo.... was all about a PR meeting.... nothing with policy. Yet the Ukrainians never knew that it was a extortion, bribery, or quid pro quo!!!! Let alone the fact that now people tied to Burisma is getting into trouble. So was Trump correct about corruption with in that company and how Ukraine was soft on corruption by the past government. :poke:

So again if you say he needs to be impeached because of the possibly not scheduling a meeting (which all got arranged without any quid pro quo). You are blinded by hate and are not looking at this with open mind.

I honestly thought that this was the one time they were going to get Trump. It looked bad when this story first broke.... until I read the transcript, heard the witness's, etc. You could see everything had to do with past stuff... not anything current. It was the interference in the 2016 Election (which MSNBC, CNN, ETC all reported on), it was about missing Emails and the DNC (which the DOJ is still investigating and a report to come out soon), it was about Burisma trying to gain political influence with the USA (which guess what.... they found stuff there too), with crowdstrike, etc. All of that was in the transcript!!! All past stuff that is now coming to light. :thumb:

Then on top of it all is how this thing was run. Schiff dictated everything. It wasn't open and straight forward. Like I have stated all along... this is what should Pi$$ every single citizen off. How that process happened. How Schiff wouldn't let people have access to things, How he wouldn't allow fair representation for the President, how he didn't let Republican's on the committee get depositions, transcripts, etc until last minute or on a short time period, how he gave Republicans on the committee short notice to call or put together a witness list, etc.

That should upset everyone. Because like you always say Ken.... What comes around goes around. Which I hope this never does come back around where our leaders act like this. But it is setting new precedent for any future hearings. Look at all the judge nominations.... everything is becoming a 3 ring circus. It is sad....very sad. :bop:

Here is the thing.... if the house has a vote it wont change one bit. I beat it will be exactly the same as the last one went. 2 or so Dem's vote against with all the Republicans. It will possibly go to the senate and then you will see an honest trial. The white house even has stated they welcome a Senate Trial (as of now). You will see all of your subpoena witnesses testify then and even more. Because "HOPEFULLY" it will be run fair with everyone on both sides of the isle have access and shared powers. Like it was meant to be when the founding fathers drew up our government blue print. :bop:
 
#43 ·
Some more Tid bits I am reading this morning... .I don't know how much of it is confirmed yet... but we will see.

So keep an eye out for...

1. FBI officials forged documents on FISA so they could spy on Cater Page
2. US Embassy is holding up Visa's for some Ukrainian people who would testify that no quid pro quo and testify about Corruption in the 2016 Election and what not.
3. Rudy says Hill lied about a meeting he had with Firtash.

I am wondering if all of this will come out in the DOJ Report and testimony???

Is that why Schiff or some Dem's wanted this Impeachment to happen to give a black eye or to muddy the waters of what could come out??? yes I know tin foil hat time for me. But it will be interesting if the stuff I mentioned is talked about and what comes to light about it.

But lets have all the facts before we rush to judgement.
 
#44 ·
You should call all those Trump people and tell them to testify and tell us all that went on. Sure looks like the Clown Prince is trying to hide what went on.

Should be kind of like when you refuse to take a Breathalyzer and are automatically guilty. :bop: :bop:

And Schiff should allow Republicans to call in anyone who has pertinent information.

Impeachment should be bipartisan and non political. Which should also be that way when the Senate takes over. BUT it won't will it Chuck? Because Republicans won't let it will they???? :bop:
 
#45 ·
Ken....

That is what I have been saying all along. That if this thing that just ended wasn't POLITICAL BS then those people should have come on in. But they knew it was pure BS, rigged against the president, etc. Yet it fell flat on its face. The only card that people can say is.... well the people subpoenaed didn't come in... so they must be hiding something. Well maybe they knew they wouldn't get a fair shake so they held tight. Remember WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL couldn't be present. So if those people wanted representation by their employer (the white house)...they couldn't have it. :poke: :puke:

But it wasn't fair at all. When the Whitehouse couldn't have counsel present... when the Republicans couldn't call the witnesses they wanted with info. When republicans couldn't have access to depositions, transcripts, testimony, etc to use in questioning.... when Republicans couldn't look at things under the umbrella of "leaks"... yet things got leaked.... who leaked the stuff.... was the leaks positive or negative towards the president... Negative... so you know republicans didn't leak it. All of it was pure BS.

I like how you stated that the Senate wont be fair. We don't know if that will be true or not. If they pull the same BS that Schiff did... I will call it out. But we don't know how it will go down. I hope they see how the country is upset on how this whole thing played out that if it does go to the Senate.... it will be an even playing field. So you will see the people screaming for Biden's to testify among others.

But if the Senate calls for a Trial...

Will these people testify:

Hunter Biden
Schiff (he or his staff had contact with WB)
The whistleblower (in closed doors hidden is fine)
Joe Biden (with respect to his role in denying aid to the Ukraine)
Anyone from Burisma (If they are not locked up already with the Ukrainian investigation)
All the people under House Subpoena's
etc.

You see if this House thing was meant to be fact finding.... all of these people would have been called in as witnesses. Because lots of what Trump wanted as it has been testified too... is looking into stuff that happened in the past... not present or future.

The interesting part right now is the things I talked about with the Ukrainian people not getting Visa's by the Embassy who would testify... Hmmmmm. Why is this getting held up?

All I can say is when the DOJ report comes out things could get interesting all the way around.
1. It could be exactly what Trump has been talking about
2. It could be a dud
3. It could even implicate Trump in some stuff

We just need to wait and see.

edit:

Like I have stated before. I am glad they looked into all of this. But after things got released they didn't need to go into "impeachment" mode. Then when it was outlined how Schiff was going to run this... it showed it was pure BS.

Also like I have mentioned before.... with so many crying wolf BS with Trump going on. Plus people since day 1 calling they will work to impeach him and ran on that to get re-elected or elected. Shows you how this process isn't a fair. Like the start of this thread.... should anyone who has been very vocal be allowed to vote for articles of impeachment? I am saying anyone who was FOR or against Trump. Before any evidence has played out. Remember lots of people kept saying we need to see the Mueller report. Those people are fine. Samething when this Ukrainian stuff started... they stated lest see the facts. Not the ones screaming Impeach the MF'er… or we need to impeach him because he will win re-election... or people calling him a Crook on the public stage at debates (before any of the Ukrainian stuff came out). Like I have mentioned... jurors are thrown off the jury if any bias what so ever is shown. This should be the same. Because some (and it seems like yourself is in the mix Ken) have your mind made up already that Trump is evil or must be guilty of something. I will admit he isn't "squeaky" clean or a model president at all. But he hasn't done anything (by all investigations) that have warranted a criminal act that will get him impeached. those are the facts... :bop:
 
#46 ·
Ken I wouldn't have the Trump people testify. The very people you evidently back would lie and not allow the republicans to ask the right questions. Look at even local news and it's all lies.
 
#47 ·
KEN W said:
You should call all those Trump people and tell them to testify and tell us all that went on. Sure looks like the Clown Prince is trying to hide what went on.

Should be kind of like when you refuse to take a Breathalyzer and are automatically guilty. :bop: :bop:

And Schiff should allow Republicans to call in anyone who has pertinent information.

Impeachment should be bipartisan and non political. Which should also be that way when the Senate takes over. BUT it won't will it Chuck? Because Republicans won't let it will they???? :bop:
One problem Ken, The supreme court chief justice will be presiding over the senate proceedings. Not the schiff show democrats
 
#48 ·
Should be kind of like when you refuse to take a Breathalyzer and are automatically guilty. :bop: :bop:
Actually this is a false statement. You are not GUILTY of a DUI.

When you sign the application/contract for getting a drivers license. There is a stipulation in that document that states you lose your driving privileges if you don't take a breathalyzer or field sobriety test or Blood test. So you are giving up your privileges of driving on the state/federal roads. You are not guilty of DUI. You are guilty of breaking a condition of a contract you signed with the government. That is why you lose it on the spot... not questions asked or a trial.

I am not sure what is in the government contracts for work. But there could be a stipulation saying if you don't go when subpoenaed you lose your job or what ever could be written into it.
 
#49 ·
Lets honestly look at this whole situation.

Lets say Trump gets articles drawn up on him for what just happened. The "influencing" or what ever they are calling it now.

So now the Democratic Nom's right now...

1. Biden
- Did the exact same thing with HARD evidence that there was a quid pro quo aid tied to firing of a prosecutor. So would he then be impeached? He did this while he was an elected official.

2. Warren
- She falsified federal documents to get a loan because of her "native American" heritage. Again it might have been unknown to her. But it has come to light that it was wrong. Would she get articles of impeachment brought up on her? This happened before she was in any public office and that would be a great argument for her.

Those are two front runners that have issues in the past.

Now I don't think if Warren is elected that she should be brought up on "impeachment" because of what I stated. But I will bet you will hear people who will. Just because of all of this Trump BS that keeps happening by the extreme left. Plus many of the lefts own elected officials.... ie: Impeach the MF'er… We need to impeach him so he doesn't win... he is a crook, etc.

Now Biden... if he wins.... and Trump has articles of impeachment brought up on him via the house for what we just witnessed these past few weeks with the Ukraine BS..... He will go down in flames for sure. From what the evidence has produced about fire the prosecutor or you wont get aid. I could care less that his Son was on Burisma. He directly told a government to fire someone or they wouldn't get aid. Then it happened and the USA released the aid....That is a direct quid pro quo. :bop:
 
#50 ·
One problem Ken, The supreme court chief justice will be presiding over the senate proceedings. Not the schiff show democrats
I totally forgot about this. So yep... the Senate Trial would be 100% open and honest.... Because a justice will be running the show.

Now if people start to say... well it wont be fair because it is a Justice that was appointed by a Republican.... well if that is peoples thinking... Then our whole justice system is wrong. Because all you would have to be or say is that the judge over looking your case is biased because they are of opposite political affiliation. I guess when I didn't get a speeding ticket lowered or dropped was because the judge was biased against my political beliefs.... :poke:
 
#51 ·
Federal judge rules McGahn must testify. Will this force the rest of the them that are ignoring subpoenas to testify? Hopefully. Will most likely be appealed to the Supremes. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. :poke: :poke:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top