|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why hasn't the FBI taken the 24 Republican Congressmen into custody? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I know, you don’t. It’s because they are dealing with material that may be highly classified. Hence the House Intelligence Committee are conducting some interviews in a secure facility.
Message 3175 quote: It’s a bipartisan committee. Are you asserting that all of them - including the Republicans - are out to get Trump ? On what evidence?
quote: Oh, look Faith is trying to discredit the evidence by lying as usual.
quote: I very much doubt that. The evidence against Trump is pretty strong and all you do is try to pretend that it doesn’t exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: The evidence we have is pretty convincing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: There is no way you can honestly believe that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: In other words people you call highly authoritative and credible should be believed over the truth ? The security concerns seem to be legitimate and so do the procedures. You yourself have claimed that Ratcliffe ‘demolished Taylor’s testimony against Trump - and he was one of the Republican representatives. So, what is the justification for their claims?
quote: Thanks for reminding me you want Schiff jailed on groundless charges. You have no real interest in justice, simply in protecting those on your side and jailing opponents. And I note that when you say the rest of the House you present no evidence that the rest of the House says any such thing. Only the people illegally trying to disrupt a legitimate investigation, flouting security rules and perhaps their allies say such a thing. But it is not simply a matter of picking sides. The evidence matters. And there is no evidence justifying their claims. You pick the side you like. I’ll follow the evidence. Because I care about the truth and you don’t.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: You didn’t provide any evidence either. But it’s obviously implausible that Democrats would agree with dubious claims made by Trump’s partisans. Indeed there’s no reason to assume that all the Republicans in the House agree.
quote: Trump IS in a bad place. For instance, his missteps in Syria have cost him even with Republicans. The fact that you feel the need to malign anyone who dares speak against Trump shows us where the problem is. It’s you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Impeachment isn’t a trial. That happens afterwards, in the Senate.
quote: They already have the whistleblower report and corroborating evidence in the transcript of the call. They are just gathering more evidence, so as to make a stronger case.
quote: See - even you acknowledge that they need to get more evidence. But somehow you call the attempt a fishing expedition. In fact the evidence is pretty good, but maybe not good enough in a court, especially in a court biased in favour of the defendant,
quote: Because the voters so love lying in hypocrites who want to destroy the USA. You know Trump is guilty. Why else would you try to pretend that the evidence doesn’t exist. Why else would you try to prevent any investigation ? But you so love the idea of a corrupt tyranny that will lock up the opposition you don’t care. Deplorable is the least of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Don’t be silly. Simply knowing of impeachable behaviour is not enough in a trial. I guess you think that knowing of illegal behaviour on the part of a Democrat should be enough to get him slung in jail bit fortunately for everyone the system doesn’t wrk like that. As I already explained.
quote: We can see that it did amount to convincing evidence - we don’t need silly inferences. And we know that the hearing was closed because classified information might come up.
quote: I have read the transcript myself. I know that there is something there.
quote: The only funny thing is that you managed to say something true. We know that they do have evidence. We’ve seen it. And so have you.
quote: Only because you want to use partisan politics to shut down a legitimate investigation.
quote: The trial is in the Senate. As I told you at the start of the post. There is no chance to shop around for a judge. And the Senate has a Republican majority.
quote: The evidence they have probably isn’t good enough. But that is the reason for the hearings. That is why they are not a fishing expedition - and that is why you are objecting to them. Because you know Trump is guilty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: They’ve already got evidence of his abuse of power and the testimony is providing further corroborating evidence. As you would know if you were following the story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: There’s enough public evidence that you have no excuse.
quote: Using state power for personal political interest is a pretty clear example of abuse of power, and abuse of power is grounds for impeachment.
quote: This is just the assertions of the Right wing hate machine, dedicated to defending Trump from investigation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: The transcript of the telephone conversation exists, has been made public, is not made up and has pretty clear evidence.
quote: By which you mean that the Left aren’t fanatical Trump supporters, making up excuses - or just plain discounting - Trump’s misdeeds.
quote: My interpretation would doubtless be far less biased than yours.
quote: Let us note that you offer no evidence of this - and let us also note that for much of that time the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
With a long history of obstructing justice.
Newsweek Over the course of decades, Donald Trump's companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders Yes, the truth is coming out, Faith. And it isn’t what you want to see, Edited by PaulK, : Remove space in url tag
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
And we see the same tactics now as in 1973, when the Trumps were accused of refusing to let apartments to African-Americans.
Shortly after the government filed its case in October, Trump attacked: He falsely declared to reporters that the feds had no evidence he and his father discriminated against minorities... Trump submitted an affidavit contending that the government had engaged in some unspecified wrongdoing by releasing statements to the press on the day it brought the case without first having any "formal communications" with him; he contended that he'd learned of the complaint only while listening to his car radio that morning. But Trump's sworn statement was a lie. Court records show that the government had filed its complaint at 10 a.m. and phoned him almost immediately afterward. Trump announced in a press conference that his family and their company were bringing a $100 million countersuit against the government for libel; anonymous tenants and community leaders, he said, had been calling and writing letters expressing shock at the government's "outrageous lies." Yet when the government filed its standard discovery requests, the Trumps reacted as though seeking that information was outrageous. They argued in court that prosecutors had no case and wanted to riffle through corporate files on a fishing expedition. They were then hit with a new delaying tactic. The Trumps submitted a filing based on statements by Trump that radically misrepresented what had occurred that day. He claimed a prosecutor, Donna Goldstein, had arrived at the company without notifying the Trumps' counsel, refused to telephone their lawyer and demanded access to Trump's office. The prosecutoraccompanied, the Trumps claimed, by five "stormtroopers"then banged on doors throughout the office, insisting she and her team be allowed to "swarm haphazardly through all the Trump files and to totally disrupt their daily business routine." The same tactics we see today, and used for the same reason. Trump is guilty as hell.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024