Full Size Ford Bronco Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
101 - 120 of 251 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,357 Posts
I've been going to order one of those for the last couple of months, but my wife says I can't wear it in public since she works for a local business therefore it's a waste of money. I'm hoping maybe my kids will get it for me for Christmas, but I think my son would just keep it for himself.

Swamp
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
369 Posts
Mitch McConnel, aka the Turtle, nuked Pelosi yesterday. I know it’s a stretch, but Pelosi can withhold sending the articles to the senate in perpetuity. She might be thinking I’ll hold them until after the election gambling the senate will go to the dems and she will hold the house at which time she will release the articles to the senate in 2021 if Trump is re-elected. I know it’s a stretch but maybe not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
I read something just now from Mark Levin.....
Another possibility of why they were in such a rush to impeach: Justice Ginsburg is not well.... impeach President Trump...... use impeachment as an excuse to not confirm any more nominees from impeached President Trump.

I would not put anything past the libtard demonrats. This simple fact that they are libtard demonrats makes them untrustworthy, regardless of whether they speak or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
“I would not put anything past the libtard demonrats. This simple fact that they are libtard demonrats makes them untrustworthy, regardless of whether they speak or not.”
And that goes for the Rhinos, too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Rep. Jeff Duncan from South Carolina: “In this country you cannot get a speeding ticked based on hearsay, but you can impeach a President.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I do not consider the official readout of the conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy hearsay. I don't consider the two taped conversations between Trump and the reporters where Trump ask for foreign intervention in the next election as hearsay. Soundlands recounting of Trumps actual words to him are not hearsay. This is about as direct as any evidence can be. Trump said it, then Trump said he said it, and then Trump bragged about saying it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
drb, I really do believe you are mistaken. They started the impeachment talk immediately upon Trumps winning and actually discussed the impeachment possibility before the election in the event Trump won. They have been trying to find anything they could for three years and they had run out of time so they made $h!t up to start the impeachment. If one were to take a close look at those 250 bills that the house has passed you would find that most are nonsense or designed to protect some lefty dem from prosecution, to prevent Trump or a Republican from doing something or give some special interest group like Antifa more protection. The reason the Senate hasn't passed many bills is because the House sends them nothing but twisted $h!t that they have poisoned with ridiculous requirements. Unlike many, I occasionally look at the bills that are being proposed. Just like MCA bill that has been sitting in Pelosi's possession for almost a year and she refused to even bring to the floor to prevent Trump from being able to use the win to promote his side for 2020.
Do you realize that Trump has just about single handedly broken the World Trade Organization. The group responsible for allowing China to screw the U.S. and it's citizens for the last 25 years. They now don't have enough judges to place restriction on how the U.S. trades with other countries. So he is such a poor business man that he was worth hundreds of millions of dollars BEFORE he got in office. Unlike Pelosi, Shiffty, Nadless, Obama, Clinton and the rest of the Swamp that used their power to promote corruption in the world while making collectively billions of illegal dollars. I guess if Trump was crooked and only made a few million he wouldn't really be a good business man compared to the rest of the crooked Dems and others.
How is it that regardless of obvious CORRUPTION such as HRC and Biden it could only be political bias? Yet when Biden tells the UK to fire their prosecutor who is investigating Burisma and Biden's crack head son or they won't get the $1Billion in aid that's not Corruption, but when Trumps asks UK to look into that firing it's political and not looking into corruption? We all know that it's the Presidents job to stop corruption. Actually part of the bipartisan bill passed by congress approving the Ukraine aid states specifically that Ukraine must put forth public effort to stem corruption in that country.
I know Trump isn't perfect, I also easily recognize the dual standards the lefty dems have. It's time for you to step back and look at things from a logical viewpoint not a Trump hating derangement point.

Swamp
Actually "They" voted 3 times against impeachment. Over 60% voted no when given the opportunity to impeach. And you may consider voting, and lower drug prices, violence against women, and fair wages twisted, but I do not. Oh, and if those 250 bills were brought to a vote in the Senate, over 50% would pass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
I do not consider the official readout of the conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy hearsay.
Agree, Not hearsay. Trump was transparent in releasing the transcript to the public.

I don't consider the two taped conversations between Trump and the reporters where Trump ask for foreign intervention in the next election as hearsay.
Agree, Trump's request for investigations into the Bidens were not hearsay, however I disagree with your characterization they were a request for interference. Hunter Biden himself now admits it displayed "poor judgment" and his father blames his staff for "not informing him".

A deeper dive was and still is warranted.

Soundlands recounting of Trumps actual words to him are not hearsay.
That is the very definition of hearsay.

hear·say /ˈhirˌsā/ noun the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

Or let me make this easier for you...

Слухи: сообщение свидетелем слов другого человека, которое обычно не допускается в качестве доказательства в суде./传闻:证人对他人的言语举报,通常在法院不作为证据。/진술 : 증인에 의한 다른 사람의 말에 대한보고. 보통 법정에서 증거로 허용되지 않습니다.


This is about as direct as any evidence can be. Trump said it, then Trump said he said it, and then Trump bragged about saying it.
Evidence of what? Certainly not a crime under any legal standard... a partisan political hatchet job? Yes.
 

·
Registered
82 XLT Lariat 351w, Edelbrock 1406 4bbl ,C6 auto, auto locking hubs ,33x10.5x15
Joined
·
1,922 Posts
I read something just now from Mark Levin.....
Another possibility of why they were in such a rush to impeach: Justice Ginsburg is not well.... impeach President Trump...... use impeachment as an excuse to not confirm any more nominees from impeached President Trump.

I would not put anything past the libtard demonrats. This simple fact that they are libtard demonrats makes them untrustworthy, regardless of whether they speak or not.
He's not impeached until they have 2 moderators walk the articles to the Senate and present their case. Then the Senate holds a trial to acquit or not. An impeachment is merely like an indictment... Once Trump is acquitted he can do what ever he wants. U don't think Clinton appointed judges after his impeachment? The impeachment wouldn't hold up appointing another scotus but being the final year of his term will...
I've also heard that the house has to present the articles to the Senate by the time they reconvene or its dropped. I haven't been able to confirm that with any sources so take it with a grain of salt... I know the Constitution does not stipulate a time frame in which they have to present articles but when the rule was written it was written in the spirit of expeditiousness in mind. They can't sit on them forever. They have to present sooner then later or all that does is reinforce that this impeachment was nothing more a partisan political move and an abuse of power. I mean this isn't the military... Hurry up and wait doesn't apply here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
The U.S. Constitution (art. 1, sec. 2, cl. 2.5) The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The U.S. Constitution (art. 1, sec. 3, cl. 3.6) The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The U.S. Constitution (art. 1, sec. 3, cl. 3.7) Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The U.S. Constitution (art. 2, sec. 2, cl. 2.1) The President... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The U.S. Constitution (art. 2, sec. 4) The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

That is the sum and total of guidance from the Constitution. Everything else is based on House rules, Senate rules and prior precedent... and we've already seen the House has no problem pitching precedent out the window.

The Senate should pitch their rules out of the window now as well, set a date and tell the house to be there or be square - if you choose not to show up then the trial will proceed based on the dubious "evidence" presented in the House's Articles of Impeachment.

Done, now get back to governing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Agree, Not hearsay. Trump was transparent in releasing the transcript to the public.

Agree, Trump's request for investigations into the Bidens were not hearsay, however I disagree with your characterization they were a request for interference. Hunter Biden himself now admits it displayed "poor judgment" and his father blames his staff for "not informing him".

A deeper dive was and still is warranted.

That is the very definition of hearsay.

hear·say /ˈhirˌsā/ noun the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

Or let me make this easier for you...

Слухи: сообщение свидетелем слов другого человека, которое обычно не допускается в качестве доказательства в суде./传闻:证人对他人的言语举报,通常在法院不作为证据。/진술 : 증인에 의한 다른 사람의 말에 대한보고. 보통 법정에서 증거로 허용되지 않습니다.



Evidence of what? Certainly not a crime under any legal standard... a partisan political hatchet job? Yes.
I do believe that it is a crime for a candidate to receive anything of value from a foreign government. We should change our laws if we are going to invite foreign participation in our elections. Historically we have limited participation to US Citizens.

OH, and "Hearsay Evidence. The term “hearsay” refers to an out-of-court statement made by someone other than the witness reporting it. For example, while testifying in John's murder trial, Anthony states that John's best friend told him that John had killed the victim." Reporting what someone said to you is not hearsay.

"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."[1] Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a),

Oh and
Russian state media have joined President Vladimir Putin in delivering a full-throated defense of impeached U.S. President Donald J. Trump. As Trump is reported to have said when asked why he believed Ukraine interfered instead of Russia, "Because Putin told me".

Oh, and the hearing was not a court of law, so the Federal Rule of Evidence does not apply. Trump will have an opportunity to present all of the evidence he wants at the trial in the Senate. However, the rules of evidence in that trial will be determined by the Senate. There are no rules for evidence presented in an impeachment, the Senate gets to make up the rules.
 

·
Registered
82 XLT Lariat 351w, Edelbrock 1406 4bbl ,C6 auto, auto locking hubs ,33x10.5x15
Joined
·
1,922 Posts
Just like the house did for their sham of an inquiry, ignoring all precedence and protocol already previously established. What the president has been charged with isn't a high crime or a misdemeanor. Hell abuse of power and interfering with Congress aren't even codified laws, they're opinion... And he is not impeached until the house presents the articles to the Senate... Until then all it is, is a vote... Again, impeachment is a process. U don't follow the process, no impeachment... And with what pelosi floated today by limiting the power of the president until the impeachment is done is so wrong and so unconstitutional, she should be arrested for treason. The Democratic party has become so corrupt, so lawless, and so deluded, drunk on their own perceived power that they are committing acts of treason on a daily basis. They do not honor their oath, their constituents or the Constitution. They should all be expelled and hung.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
I do believe that it is a crime for a candidate to receive anything of value from a foreign government. We should change our laws if we are going to invite foreign participation in our elections. Historically we have limited participation to US Citizens.
Tying into your other assigned thread, yes, just ask the Clinton Foundation about foreign donations. Or we could discuss your participation here on FSB...

The ironic thing regarding “foreign participation” though; was that not what Trump was seeking? An investigation into meddling in the US’s 2016 elections and back door influence peddling by hiring Joe Biden’s son?

OH, and "Hearsay Evidence. The term “hearsay” refers to an out-of-court statement made by someone other than the witness reporting it. For example, while testifying in John's murder trial, Anthony states that John's best friend told him that John had killed the victim." Reporting what someone said to you is not hearsay.

"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."[1] Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a),
Oh, dear, we do have a couple of problems.

(1)You are aware that the “damning evidence” provided in Sondland’s testimony was “presumed” from conversations with everyone but Trump?

From a November 20th article on Politico: “Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’” Sondland said in his opening remarks to the House Intelligence Committee. “The answer is yes.”
...
Under questioning from GOP counsel Steve Castor, Sondland said he never heard directly from Trump about any pre-conditions for the military aid or the White House meeting. Republicans also sought to highlight Sondland’s claim that it was only his “presumption” that the military aid was part of a quid pro quo, and that he did not take contemporaneous notes.
“President Trump never told me directly that the aid was tied to that statement” about investigations, Sondland said.

(2) You are still presuming Trump’s request was some how wrong. Even Joe and Hunter Biden have stated publicly now the optics of Hunter’s involvement were poor. We shouldn’t be asking why Trump asked for an investigation, but why did Obama and his administration not step in - or were they to busy withholding $1B worth of aid to the Ukraine to get Shokin fired?

But let’s not dilute the topic of hearsay. Sondland is on the record there was no direct conversation regarding quid pro quo with Trump, therefore relying on Sondland’s testimony as prima facie evidence is, by definition, relying on hearsay which is inadmissible as we will find out when the articles are tried in the Senate.

Oh and
Russian state media have joined President Vladimir Putin in delivering a full-throated defense of impeached U.S. President Donald J. Trump. As Trump is reported to have said when asked why he believed Ukraine interfered instead of Russia, "Because Putin told me".
Did you get a local weather report with that?

Oh, and the hearing was not a court of law, so the Federal Rule of Evidence does not apply. Trump will have an opportunity to present all of the evidence he wants at the trial in the Senate. However, the rules of evidence in that trial will be determined by the Senate. There are no rules for evidence presented in an impeachment, the Senate gets to make up the rules.
I think there are a lot of House members who might disagree with your first statement on principle, but yes the House sets its own rules just as the Senate does. I believe I pointed that out in an earlier post: “House rules, Senate rules and precedent...”

This is where the House Democrats have lost a great deal of credibility in my opinion. Rules of impeachment were laid out and agreed in a bipartisan fashion in the 1974 pending impeachment of Nixon and reaffirmed, again in a bipartisan fashion, in the 1999 impeachment of Clinton. Not that that there was a love fest in either case, but the partisan animosity we have witnessed recently did not exist... maybe because we didn’t have foreign trolls whipping everyone into a lather?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,647 Posts
While everyone is watching and arguing about the impeachment show, progressives from both parties passed a continuing resolution for funding the gov't with a provision for extending the Patriot Act
as Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) predicted:
"Today, while everyone is distracted by the impeachment drama, Congress will vote to extend warrantless data collection provisions of the #PatriotAct, by hiding this language on page 25 of the Continuing Resolution (CR) that temporarily funds the government. To sneak this through, Congress will first vote to suspend the rule which otherwise gives us (and the people) 72 hours to consider a bill. The scam here is that Democrats are alleging abuse of Presidential power, while simultaneously reauthorizing warrantless power to spy on citizens that no President should have... in a bill that continues to fund EVERYTHING the President does... and waiving their own rules to do it. I predict Democrats will vote on a party line to suspend the 72 hour rule. But after the rule is suspended, I suspect many Republicans will join most Democrats to pass the CR with the Patriot Act extension embedded in it."
Read more below:

Betraying the Constitution: Who Will Protect Us from an Unpatriotic Patriot Act?
.
 

·
Registered
82 XLT Lariat 351w, Edelbrock 1406 4bbl ,C6 auto, auto locking hubs ,33x10.5x15
Joined
·
1,922 Posts
Did the president sign the budget plan? I don't think he will because it includes full funding for planned Parenthood and only like 1.7 billion of the 8+billion he asked for the wall.
There were a few other things too brought up by Ted Cruz the other day.
Top link on his page. The video where he's lighting the fat stogie https://m.facebook.com/SenatorTedCruz/
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,647 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,647 Posts
Ron Paul was also speaking about this distraction and extension of the despicable Partiot Act a few days back. Dog and Pony show works again.
Bread and Circuses...American Style

Here's part of it:

"And then, of course, there is the political circus. Solemn legislative responsibility and proceedings have now become high drama, tailor made for the TV cameras. The latest government shutdown (something like the 17th our country has had) is Exhibit A. We have wandered far from the idea of government of, by, and for the people and have walked into a morass of professional politicians who are more worried about personal enrichment and aggrandizement than protecting our country as a whole and empowering. There are a few specific powers, rights and allowances directly given to the federal and state Governments - the rest are reserved for the people by the Constitution and Articles of Confederation. We as a nation seem to have forgotten that.

"These days, many of the state and individual rights and privileges have been usurped by the federal branch and will never return to the states or the people. These are losses of rights that many citizens have no idea belonged to them in the first place, since they do not know their own country's history and political makeup. For example, they still believe we live in a democracy when in fact we live in a constitutional republic - a representative form of government, not a direct form of government - where the people elect their representatives but then allow them to fester in office because they do not know they should be changing them like they change out of an old suit when it gets dirty."
 
101 - 120 of 251 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top