House expected to Impeach Trump ??..announcement at 3pm CST

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Sep 6, 2012
1,926
876
743
Edmond
First and foremost thank you for your service.

Second, thank you for proving my point. You have no idea who I am. What I do. Or what I’ve done. You just know that I stand opposed to a serial liar/adulterer. A proven con man. A proven racist. Someone who cares more about self than a relationship w Christ, his family or his country. His campaign is & was filled w criminals and mobsters.

So yeah I think he’s bad for the country as do a majority of Americans. So I’ll claim my patriotism in my own way and in ways you will never know of. Thanks for asking.
Sorry, you tell everyone what you are not. Why dont you tell people who you are?
 

GodsPeace

Joshua 1:9
Aug 20, 2004
31,673
13,618
1,743
41
Stillwater
Sounds like they need a refresher on post WW2 Europe, the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Union, the invasion of Crimea and the Articles of the Constitution dealing with Presidential powers and Congressional oversight.

It is illegal to bribe in an extortion attempt of a foreign government to coerce them to investigate a political rival.
Hearsay is not enough. This guy heard something from that guy doesn't prove anything. Trump asking an ally to look at what happened in 2016 isn't extortion.

Not only that, Trump is either a genius that perfectly edits his statements to avoid incriminating himself, or he's the worst extortionist of all time since he raised aid given over previous administrations without Ukrainian follow through.

Maybe the next witness will actually have substantial evidence beyond speculation.
 
Dec 9, 2013
561
187
593
49
Hearsay is not enough. This guy heard something from that guy doesn't prove anything. Trump asking an ally to look at what happened in 2016 isn't extortion.

Not only that, Trump is either a genius that perfectly edits his statements to avoid incriminating himself, or he's the worst extortionist of all time since he raised aid given over previous administrations without Ukrainian follow through.

Maybe the next witness will actually have substantial evidence beyond speculation.
First this is not an actual court case so my understanding is that evidentiary laws don’t apply. Second, if evidentiary laws did apply hearsay could be admissible given certain witnesses not making themselves available to testify.

Most important today was not about hearsay. There was testimony of 1st hand knowledge of $ being withheld. Taylor knew the $ was withheld. Taylor testified to the fact this was done to the detriment of US stated policy. We also have Trump’s memo of the phone call asking for the investigation into Biden. We have his CoS going on national TV admitting they do this all the time. His words “Get over it”
 

GodsPeace

Joshua 1:9
Aug 20, 2004
31,673
13,618
1,743
41
Stillwater
First this is not an actual court case so my understanding is that evidentiary laws don’t apply. Second, if evidentiary laws did apply hearsay could be admissible given certain witnesses not making themselves available to testify.

Most important today was not about hearsay. There was testimony of 1st hand knowledge of $ being withheld. Taylor knew the $ was withheld. Taylor testified to the fact this was done to the detriment of US stated policy. We also have Trump’s memo of the phone call asking for the investigation into Biden. We have his CoS going on national TV admitting they do this all the time. His words “Get over it”
What we saw today was thin speculation. Money was withheld and speculation about why that is proves no wrongdoing.

This is empty-headed crap. Somehow I expected there to be at least one time today that I would be impressed by the evidence.

I'm not against impeaching a president, but I require a bit more actually evidence to get there.

Neither side looked like more than desperate hacks today. This is what my tax dollars pay for.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,948
13,974
1,743
Lololol

I learned today that:

"Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct"
--- Senator Mike Quigley

The Democrats determined the process, selected the witnesses and made the rules, and this is the best they can do!? I really dislike Trump but it's time for me to go get a MAGA hat.
 
Last edited:

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
14,053
9,414
1,743
39
Fairmont, MN
I'm a vet too, douche bag. So shove your phony patriotic act. Also fitting you (like most libs) would support the known liar Schitt. I didn't vote for trump and don't even like him. I can just separate chicken salad from chicken shit. Unlike partisan hacks like you and the hapless numb-nut @Pokey.
Taylor was horrible for the purpose Schitt had him there and he was the best the dems had to offer. Lessor, even more worthless witnesses will scuttle the dreams of the left.

For someone who claims they don't like Trump and didn't vote for him, you spend a lot of time defending him.

Just saying
 
Dec 9, 2013
561
187
593
49
What we saw today was thin speculation. Money was withheld and speculation about why that is proves no wrongdoing.

This is empty-headed crap. Somehow I expected there to be at least one time today that I would be impressed by the evidence.

I'm not against impeaching a president, but I require a bit more actually evidence to get there.

Neither side looked like more than desperate hacks today. This is what my tax dollars pay for.
So when Volker, Sondland & Vindman testify as to why you will be for impeachment?
 
Jul 9, 2011
2,380
1,397
743
64
Yankees Tavern, Carlos Texas
Sounds like they need a refresher on post WW2 Europe, the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Union, the invasion of Crimea and the Articles of the Constitution dealing with Presidential powers and Congressional oversight.

It is illegal to bribe in an extortion attempt of a foreign government to coerce them to investigate a political rival.
If as you are implying what transpired was legit, why are these distinguished men and women of service to the US coming forward testifying under oath that this was not legit? We will see but today’s testimony & transcripts from the closed door hearing point to Bolton seeing it the same way.

I can’t comment on quid pro quo as that’s a Trumpism designed to move your eyes from bribery, extortion, and foreign interference in an election. Those are illegal.

If you rob a bank but give the $ back because you hear the police are coming to investigate you, I’m pretty sure you don’t get off scott free.
Both of your posts are based on logic that falls apart under a little scrutiny.

First, the US (either the President, SOS, VP, Ambassadors and others) both Democrats and Republicans have denied or threatened to deny aid to foreign governments many times for a variety of reasons in the past. It is not illegal. Second, Trump didn't tie the aid to the request, he merely asked them to investigate corruption in their own country. Read the transcript: he did not make any reference to withholding aid in the conversation. The aid was transferred as scheduled. By the way, quid pro quo was first used by the Dems and then dropped because their own witnesses said there was none.

By your definition what Biden did would also be bribery and extortion. You can't have it both ways; either Biden is guilty of bribery and extortion, or neither of them are.
 

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
5,027
3,500
1,743
Florida
Both of your posts are based on logic that falls apart under a little scrutiny.

First, the US (either the President, SOS, VP, Ambassadors and others) both Democrats and Republicans have denied or threatened to deny aid to foreign governments many times for a variety of reasons in the past. It is not illegal. Second, Trump didn't tie the aid to the request, he merely asked them to investigate corruption in their own country. Read the transcript: he did not make any reference to withholding aid in the conversation. The aid was transferred as scheduled. By the way, quid pro quo was first used by the Dems and then dropped because their own witnesses said there was none.

By your definition what Biden would also be guilty of bribery and extortion. You can't have it both ways; either Biden is guilty of bribery and extortion, or neither of them are.
Your logic falls apart under a bit more scrutiny. He asked for a press conference to announce an investigation into "The Bidens" and the 2016 election. He didn't mention or give a crap about corruption.
 
Jul 9, 2011
2,380
1,397
743
64
Yankees Tavern, Carlos Texas
Your logic falls apart under a bit more scrutiny. He asked for a press conference to announce an investigation into "The Bidens" and the 2016 election. He didn't mention or give a crap about corruption.
Reread the transcript. He DOES talk about corruption in general, and you are right he does mention Biden in passing - part of the apparent corruption he was referring to that needed to be investigated.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,289
24,253
1,743
Tulsa, OK
For someone who claims they don't like Trump and didn't vote for him, you spend a lot of time defending him.

Just saying
Don't mistake defending against the absurd witch hunt by the DNC House as defending Trump... I'd defend lots of people I don't like from this kind of authoritarian crap.

This is the only thing being discussed right now and there is no evidence of a crime...so yes, I'll defend against that.