Impeachment Witnesses
5 responses | 0 likes
Started by wglassfo - Jan. 26, 2020, 10:32 p.m.

Should Bolten, Biden Sr, Biden Jr.  [1, 2 or all 3] testify at the impeachment as witnesses

Comments
By metmike - Jan. 27, 2020, 1:38 a.m.
Like Reply

It really doesn't matter.

This is just getting sillier with both sides continuing to lie.

In the real world, when the prosecutor is busted lying, the case gets thrown out.

President Trump obviously withheld aid to the Ukraine for several weeks to try to get them to investigate real corruption that Joe and Hunter Biden likely were involved in.  Because Joe Biden is a democrat, it's an impeachable offense according to one side. According to the other side, this was real corruption and the president has an obligation to investigate corruption of this nature. 

Fact is he only did it because it was Biden.............however, the president has the right to investigate corruption and to fire ambassadors.  President Trump is lying about the real reason that he did it(of course he isn't going to say "I wanted to expose Joe Bidens corruption because he's a democrat running for president" Just like the democrats and Schiff are telling lies about the phone call, whistle blower and other things and why they are impeaching Trump (because he's a republican).


1.  What Trump did is not anywhere close to even being in the vicinity of being an impeachable offense.

2. When a prosecutor like Schiff gets caught lying on numerous occasions to try to convict somebody.............things go the other way quickly. The accused has justification for the case to be thrown out and the corrupt prosecutor is the one who gets into trouble.


Regarding  holding military aid to Ukraine up for a couple of weeks, then releasing it.........with no investigation by the Ukaine and clearly, by definition no quid pro quo and no harm done to any parties or anyone.........are you frickin kidding me that this is a high crime that should result in impeachment?


What about Obama doing this below, which was 100 times worse and really did hurt many people including those from the US(but I don't think he should have been impeached over)

Yes, Obama Helped Fund the Iranian Regime

By




   


By metmike - Jan. 27, 2020, 2:05 a.m.
Like Reply

Getting rid of war monger Bolton was one of the smartest things Trump ever did just like dumping that snake and classified information leaker,  Comey, who decided that his new career was to write books and give speaking engagments trashing President Trump.

Bolten just came out with his new book and appears to be following in the footsteps of Comey and would love to testify against Trump here.

Regardless, President Trump is guilty of holding up aid for a couple of weeks to get the  investigation (into real corruption) that he wanted to happen because it was a  political foe.  So let Bolten tell us that. It's still not anything close to an impeachable offense. 

Bolten is chomping at the bit to say things which can hurt Trump but if you look at what actually happened, it's just not impeachable stuff. 

By WxFollower - Jan. 27, 2020, 12:26 p.m.
Like Reply

 Do any Trump supporters have any problem with his blatant lie about not knowing Parnas? Or is this excused just because lying is what Trump does and is doesn't affect you personally?

By metmike - Jan. 27, 2020, 12:59 p.m.
Like Reply

Larry,

Not sure about others but I do have a big problem with all of his blatant lies.

If you read my long winded stuff, I am insisting that Trump is lying about the reason for him to do this investigation. He clearly is doing it because its Biden and he is lying about several elements.

Most of his defenders either are blind to this or realize that admitting it, makes Trump look bad.

Trump does look bad here............but my points are:

1. Though politically motivated because it was an opponent, an investigation into what sure as heck looks like corruption by the Bidens is justifiable. Our politicians have been investigating the politicians from the other party for political reasons for years........would Trump have been investigated this much if he was not Trump? Why is it ok for the other side to do it to him but not him play by the EXACT SAME rules?

2. He obviously is going to lie about it because the truth on partisan issues, like the impeachment=100% democrats is never told. Schiff claims that if Trump were a democrat, he would be acting exactly like this..........yeah, that big lie and his other ones bother me too. Who thinks Trump should be honest and come out and say "OK, the real reason that I wanted this investigation was because it was a political opponent!" If thats the case, then lets have most of the democrats come out and say "The reason that we are impeaching Trump is because he is a republican!?  Of course that is THE reason.  They would not have done it to a republican.

3. It's one thing for the accused to lie about the circumstances but when the prosecutor tells numerous lies, it tells us that the truth is not powerful enough to win the case. It also obliterates their credibility and anywhere outside of Congress, a prosecutor busted doing what Adam Schiff has done would be subject to severe scrutiny and potential penalties and the case likely thrown out.  It is absolutely not acceptable to use lies to try to convict a guilty person.

4. Speaking of guilt. Exactly where is the high crime? Trump used his influence to try to get the Ukraine to do an investigation of something that should be investigated(his reasons are different than mine and are corrupt reasons-just like the motives of dems with the impeachment are corrupt- but mine are valid as an American citizen represented by Trump).  He held up aid for a few weeks, then released it.............and got nothing. No quid pro quo.  This is peanuts compared to what Obama did, mentioned above.............but I absolutely do not think that Obama should have been impeached over what he did(though it was outrageous). 

Do the lies that Trump tells about this incident turn it into a high crime punishable by impeachment?  If he was testifying under oath, like Bill Clinton and told blatant lies, then we have a better case for impeachment. 

I think that President Trump, testifying under oath would be the biggest presidential disaster in history and no way would he do it.

Does that mean he lies all the time and would do it under oath. You bet.

If the dems wanted to impeach him for lying and massive character flaws(being mean and unprofessional and embarrasing the office of president) they could give 1,000 examples and I would likely agree with most of them.  But this incident does not even come close to meeting the criteria of whats needed to impeach. If it did, then Schiff could have done an honest presentation of the straight/authentic facts from the get go.

By metmike - Jan. 27, 2020, 1:42 p.m.
Like Reply

The point is.

One side is acting like what Trump did was this horrible crime that caused all sorts of harm and is totally outside the realm of anything that a president has ever done...........this is total bs. There was not much harm done to anybody and their presentation misrepresents the entire thing to make it look MUCH worse than what really happened. 

The other side likes to pretend that President Trump was only interested in investigating corruption and doing his job. It was his obligation to investigate the country he is giving all this money too and Biden's corruption with the Ukraine just happens to be part of it.  This is total bs too. Bidens corruption is the entire reason for the attempted investigation because it was Biden. 

But the bottom line is that we are having an impeachment over this. It's entirely up to the prosecution to prove impeachable offenses were committed. Even if Trump was completely politically motivated, like almost every politician in Washington and every previous president(that acted to use their power of the office)  what he did was not that much different than what they are doing to him right now..........except they don't just want to do a legit investigation, they want the "political death penalty"  to remove him from office for playing their game.

Funny thing is that I don't find many with my opinion above except for some republicans. 

There are 2 sides in public, both on the extreme end, not much in the middle.

But you see.........being in the middle means this was a bad thing but not impeachable. If you want impeachment over this, by definition you must be on the extreme end of one side.