A few thoughts

[ss12]

To me, dirtMAN007 makes a valid point in his posting regarding, “follow the rule of law and illegally leak information”, and with that said, for non-arguments sake - why is it that, Edward Snowden, Eric Ciaramella, and now this leaker, are all whistleblower/leakers, yet Snowden is the only one of the three considered a criminal, as well as having his identity revealed? (if all of that makes sense) Both Obama and Trump have openly expressed displeasure about Snowden, with the consensus of him being a hacker or traitor and so forth. This is another topic that I am baffled about regarding the bias.

If the IMPOTUS would have followed the "rule of law" nobody would have to leak the information. President Washington made it clear that a president can't use executive privilege when it comes to an impeachment. Here is a perfect reason why Washington made that decision. The IMPOTUS is using executive privilege to hide evidence that will prove he is committing crimes why in office.

As far as the whistleblowers goes everybody is for whistleblower as long as they don't whistleblow on their parade.

[Barbecueboy]

Whistleblowers

Everyone likes them when they work for what they were intended for and they aren't used as orchestrated game pieces ......a true whistleblower scenario is pretty easy to see, so is one used as a get even tactic.

Erry body ain't blind to that.

[lurker]

If the IMPOTUS would have followed the "rule of law" nobody would have to leak the information.

Ok. Lets say for a minute that you are correct on that point, and your entire impeachment opinion(s) points and or facts. With that given, why did - Pelosi, Schiff, (and Nadler etc ...), think it was necessary to proceed (rush) forward now, rather than taking a slower legalistic approach via our court judicial systems? Thus getting possibly more inquiry evidence for impeachment of Trump. Just looking for your personal opinion, nothing more.

[lurker]

As far as the whistleblowers goes everybody is for whistleblower as long as they don't whistleblow on their parade.

Everyone likes them when they work for what they were intended for and they aren't used as orchestrated game pieces ...

I believe that was my point, yet its the bias and hypocrisy that just pi$$es me off to no end. I guess someone always has to be someone else’s bad guy.

[ss12]

Ok. Lets say for a minute that you are correct on that point, and your entire impeachment opinion(s) points and or facts. With that given, why did - Pelosi, Schiff, (and Nadler etc ...), think it was necessary to proceed (rush) forward now, rather than taking a slower legalistic approach via our court judicial systems? Thus getting possibly more evidence for impeachment of Trump. Just looking for your personal opinion, nothing more.

I really can't tell you why they did what they did. The only thing I can think of is the length of the Mueller investigation. Going through the judicial system could of have taking a long time. Look at the Obstruction of congress charge. That's exactly what it is not supplying documents and not letting your administration testify in front of congress. Then people are going to say the president has that right because of executive privilege. Now we are seeing evidence that is proving how corrupt the IMPOTOS was. Is this what the citizens really want? A president that can committed crimes and hide behind the executive order? It was first recognized by the Supreme Court as a legitimate presidential power in 1974 as part of the Watergate investigation — although ironically, the justices went on to conclude that even though executive privilege existed, it was not unlimited, so Nixon still couldn’t use it to avoid handing over the White House tapes to a court. Executive privilege is not a "GET OUT OF JAIL" free card.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/could-executive-privilege-protect-trump-in-the-impeachment-inquiry/

https://www.justsecurity.org/66713/george-washingtons-advisors-agreed-impeachment-did-away-with-executive-privilege/

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...tive-privilege

[dirtMAN007]

So the Judicial system is good when it takes 2.5 years to do an investigation of the that gives the libtards you think do highly of a chance to say our great president colluded with Russia the whole time but in fact was cleared of any such charge ? But the judicial system would have sucked in this case ? But now the libtards spare finding that if they would have left it play out they might have been a lot closer to their goal ? And you don’t see Sotheby’s stupidity and hypocrisy in what you stand for ? Pitiful you are !

[lurker]

I really can't tell you why they did what they did. The only thing I can think of is the length of the Mueller investigation. Going through the judicial system could of have taking a long time. Look at the Obstruction of congress charge. That's exactly what it is not supplying documents and not letting your administration testify in front of congress. Then people are going to say the president has that right because of executive privilege.

Alright, I roll with that and my thoughts.

I really can't tell you why they did what they did.

So am I off base in my opinion/thinking - “they” rushed in the Senate with the caveat that any more articles of impeachment could be added any time moving forward, in the House.

1. The only thing I can think of is the length of the Mueller investigation. 2. Going through the judicial system could of have taking a long time.

1. Thus, “they” wanted, as Nancy and most Democrats have has openly stated, Trump impeached before the 2020 election.
2. But IMHO, that is the way it should have been done.

Look at the Obstruction of congress charge. That's exactly what it is not supplying documents and not letting your administration testify in front of congress. Then people are going to say the president has that right because of executive privilege.

I follow your point, yet I’m not so convinced, personally. I think its the legalize points and law, constitutionally, where people get confused about what “is” and what “isn’t”, constitution wise.

Then people are going to say the president has that right because of executive privilege.

Public opinion wise, you are correct IMO.

--- 1974 Nixon ---

I’ll follow along with you on this at this time, so I’ll take it all at face value as being correct.

As for dirtMAN007’s comments, I think he and I are somewhat on the same page and I covered my inquisitiveness above.

Again, I personally think the way the entire Trump impeachment process has been handled very poorly from the regards of our paid politicians. Furthering, I’ll again say the House inquiry should have went at a slower, more constitutionally applied, pace. Most of the constitutional scholars writings, that I’ve read, agree. Would you agree with those three points?

[lurker]

Intelligent debate?

If youre looking for intelligent debate this is not the place ----

Hey, I’m trying my hardest to an intelligent debate. So far so good IMO

[ss12]

So am I off base in my opinion/thinking - “they” rushed in the Senate with the caveat that any more articles of impeachment could be added any time moving forward, in the House.

No you are not off base in your opinion. If this is what you call rush then you would have to say that the Clinton's impeachment was rushed. Clinton's impeachment was initiated on 10-8-98 and last until 12-19-98. Trump's impeachment was initiated on 9-24-19 and lasted until 12-13-19. As far as adding more articles of impeachment I'm against it.


1. Thus, “they” wanted, as Nancy and most Democrats have has openly stated, Trump impeached before the 2020 election.
2. But IMHO, that is the way it should have been

There shouldn't be a time limit on Trump's impeachment nor a certain time. When ever you have the evidence that any president has committed an impeachable offense you start then. Doesn't matter if an election year or not.


Again, I personally think the way the entire Trump impeachment process has been handled very poorly from the regards of our paid politicians. Furthering, I’ll again say the Senate inquiry should have went at a slower, more constitutionally applied, pace. Most of the constitutional scholars writings, that I’ve read, agree. Would you agree with those three points?

I'm taking you meant house and not senate inquiry? There pace was no different than the Clinton's was.

Word of advice don't stay in any of the IMPOTUS properties. I'm sure they will be targets!

[Clayton_Wetters]

BS!!!!!!....

[dirtMAN007]

And you are hoping that innocent Americans are killed by Iranian sponsored terror so you and your libtards can have an “ ah I gotcha moment “ ! You guys are pathetic at best !

[dirtMAN007]

At least they will be met with BRUTAL DEADLY FORCE this time and not skids of cash !

[Raceready]

bs!!!!!!....

4 sure !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lurker]

I'm taking you meant house and not senate inquiry?

Correct, my mis-statement.

There shouldn't be a time limit on Trump's impeachment nor a certain time. When ever you have the evidence that any president has committed an impeachable offense you start then. Doesn't matter if an election year or not.

Are you thinking the Democrats will (try) re-impeach at any given time, as needed, in the future?

As far as adding more articles of impeachment I'm against it.

Thank you!!!

[ss12]

Are you thinking the Democrats will (try) re-impeach at any given time, as needed, in the future?



I can't predict what they might do nor what the president might do. Isn't their constitutional duty to impeach the president if he commits a crime that is impeachable?