Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
And I don't disagree with that sentiment either. But if the objective is to influence behavior then you need to stop enabling the lying, the spectacle, the theater. How do you accomplish that? Put weight into the facts and hold your elected officials accountable when they veer away from them. The problem is the populace does not care about facts, only what's convenient for their priorities.
Yeah, but I have a feeling he did not articulate what he was trying to say properly. In this case, somebody with hearsay has more to offer an investigation than people with direct knowledge ignoring subpoenas and refusing to cooperate.
Instructing witnesses not to testify is an impeachable offense. There’s no real question about whether Trump has committed impeachable offenses, IMO. The only question is about how politicians are gonna politic.
Taylor and Kent are not experts on the subject of what acts are impeachable. They are fact witnesses.
Yes, the bolded would be accurate. No need to assume that's what he meant. It's ok to call out dumb comments, even if it comes from "your side" Most of the day yesterday was from people on the left criticizing comments, and in some cases the appearance, of those on the right. I don't expect even criticism, especially when much of it is warranted, but it would be nice if dumb comments are called out on both sides without the need to defend or presume what they really meant. I don't see a lot of leniency on things that people on the right did not articulate properly. Minor point but I'll leave it at that.
And that is why I've said that our country is circling the drain. We are at a critical point in time where we have to stand for what our country was founded on, or be prepared to suffer the consequences. I guess we reap what we sow.
So 31 Dems, who were elected in 2018, should fear the Trump because he carried their areas two years before? What kind of logic is this?
I agree but my question to tim wasn't about instructing witnesses not to testify. Is having Giuliani and Barr talk to Ukraine about Biden an impeachable offense.
@JohnnyU I'm assuming you have crimestoppers in your area? The anonymous hotline for people to call in to report crimes. I see this being the same as someone reporting a crime through that channel. Let's say Roy is at a party and hears Bob bragging about robbing an elderly couple in their home a few nights ago. Roy has no first hand knowledge of the crime. But, he calls crimestoppers and gives the police Bob's information. Roy is the whistleblower and should remain anonymous. Otherwise, Bob may threaten Roy or Roy's family.
......because if the American people in those districts aren't in favor of impeachment, the representative who won that district has to take that into consideration.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
How many mob WBs go to court to face the boss they blew the whistle on? Because to do so, aside from the fact they're interviewing the people the WB said to, is opening them up to reprisal.
What Quigley said is wrong in that situation.
Good thing the impeachment proceedings won’t involve taking the whistleblower’s word for anything then.
What?
I'm thinking mainly when you have reason to believe someone might not be truthful or they might be mistaken.
No need to show a link for everything when I said "If" the American people in those districts are against impeachment. If Trump won those districts in 2016 I suspect many of those Americans are against impeachment.
I wonder why we aren't able to hear from the people with first hand knowledge. Wouldn't you like to hear Rudy, Mulvaney, Trump, etc. under oath? Why is the WH blocking the people WITH first hand knowledge? They could put an end to this in one afternoon and make it all go away. Yet they choose not to.
Doesn't the basic principle of impeachment go against the vote of the populous? Every President that was ever impeached was voted into office.
All I know is that if there is a whistle blower, he/she should be made to testify and identity known to the defendant and their lawyers, or their whistle blowing should not be considered.
No, I believe Marie Yovanovitch is tomorrow. The aid Taylor referenced has a closed door too.
Perhaps, as they showed in 2018, these constituents prefer Democrats now? So, the logic that they would fear the impeachment because Trump won in 2016 appears flawed.
I would also like every poster here that reports another person's post, made public.
Thanks
Removing the President of the United States isn't compared to FBGs forum. If there is a whistleblower, then the defense has the right to confront in court.
What if we have no reason to distrust Bill and he says "I was inside all day and didn't check but my wife said it was raining and I trust she was telling me the truth"?
...out with it!Instead of the whistle blower, you should be demanding Rudy goes under oath. He has the first hand knowledge. Let him tell his side. Trump too for that matter. They both know infinitely more than the whistle blower.
The articles of impeachment will be based on acts that occurred after the 2016 election.
