Impeachment: The Process Begins

Nope. There is nothing even remotely untrue about my statement. It was perfectly OK for Nixon to have DNC offices bugged. It was no worse than what previous Democratic presidents did as a matter of routine.

And since the Constitution gave Nixon total control over federal investigations and prosecutions, there was no obstruction of justice. That was just another one of the Democrats' phony accusations.

You can't point out any errors in any of my other posts either.

Exhibit A.

This is silly bickering. We have the whistleblower report and the transcript of the phone call. And, we have verification from the White House that the transcript was moved off of the normal server to a more secure server.

What you are saying is factually incorrect. It is also silly, which is why I feel silly even responding.

Have you read the whistle blower report?

Maybe we should start a new thread for this strange Nixon tangent. This thread is about the politics of the current Impeachment process.

The Nixon impeachment process ended when public opinion turned against him. Senate Republicans went to Nixon to tell him that they could no longer support him. They made it clear that Nixon would be impeached because many Republican would vote against him.

Relax max, noone is questioning your comptence, please start applying logic. Even the priniples involved (both sides) hqve clqimed that all the stuff that will be entered as evidence is presently HEARSAY.That is a fact, I dont know why you deny it. Its the very reason the inquiry and investigation is underway.
Rudy Giuliani on this mornings talking head shows, has countered almost ALL of the whistle -blowers complaints and has entered similar complaints about the Biden issue and the very TIMELINE of the events issued in the complaint. As far as the "losing of conversation records with Ukraine or filing them elsewhere " He hd a fairly well thought out response . NOW when its finally evidence and there is "dueling evidence" we will then be in the throes of the actual proceedings.

Its all hearsay, period, dont get all invested in one outcome or another.

Ive read the full accounts in the NYT since last Tues, with Wed being a precis of the complaint. You realize that the entire complaint would be ruled hearsay as it is dont you???
The factual (1st order bases for the complaint must be verified or its not gonna be presented as evidence at all). Hearsay is when you claim as fact what others say to you about the focus of your complaint and you used it as a basis for all you conclude.
Do you not understand where youre coming from??

Thats cauae its directly and symmetrically untrue from the getgo. ARE YOU A GLENN BECKY?? He makes dum **** statements like that.

You seem to want to bicker. Sorry, but this tangent is getting boring.

ok, but can you counter it? NO YOU CANNOT .
Being "bored" is a mans of asserting your superiority. I too shall quit beating the steed since youve closed yer mind (Youre kinda like a version of our Oak Ridge metalhead.

Every president gains personally from things they do as head of state. How much do you think Obama got rewarded for mandating health insurance purchases, for example? Or for all the other fiscal stimulus projects he did? If you rob from the rich to give to the poor, you are going to get plenty of kickbacks from everyone who benefits from that fiscal stimulus.

I think that might have been a setup to retaliate against him for the war on drugs or some other political motive.

I don't really care about vindicating him for any reason except I dislike the idea that people get framed and/or otherwise persecuted for political reasons. It is contrary to the spirit of free speech and the constitution more generally.

No need to make it more complicated — he authorized the coverup of a criminal act. I don't know how old you are but if you'd grown up when Nixon was on the scene you wouldn't be bothering to vindicate the guy. As with Trump, he was a victim of his own ambition.

This is factually incorrect.

The claim that the evidence is "presently hearsay" is coming from the pro-Trump camp. This is spin coming from one side. For farmerman to claim it is coming from "both sides" is simply untrue. If farmerman has a link of Nancy Pelosi (or any other "principle" on the side of impeachment) claiming that the whistleblower report is hearsay" he should provide it. I don't believe it exists.

The facts are; we have two documents that have been validated by the White House as being the real documents. And we have the White House verifying the claim that the transcript of the call was moved to a "code name secure" system.

I've read various articles claiming that the war on drugs was just a clever way to persecute minorities. It may be true that most of the people arrested/jailed in the war on drugs were minorities, but the problem is that no one who writes critiques against the war on drugs is actually for getting rid of drugs.

So calling the war on drugs 'racist,' may be true in practice, but the fact is that society is racist and that is the underlying cause of why the predatory and degeneration-causing illegal drug industry is racist, and so it shouldn't be surprising that a war on drugs would also end up being racist.

Anyway, the point is that if you are in favor of getting rid of drugs in society, the war on drugs was and is a good idea. All the propaganda against it, whether focusing on its racism or claiming it doesn't work or whatever is fundamentally due to the fact that people don't want the police interfering with their drug party lifestyles and the lucrative business dealings that serve those lifestyles.

Nixon was brave to stand up to it by declaring a war on drugs, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he got framed with Watergate as retaliation for not ignoring the drug industry.

I believe your problem is that, in a proceeding, you are not familiar with what evidence actually means. YOU are saying that "We have evidence". when thats jut solid Bullshit. Youre being as intrctble as are the guys on the other side. We shall see when this is all arrived at.

You are also ignorant of the term "Hearsay" in a proceedings like this. The whistle blower, whether we like it or not is presenting hearsay at this momnt. It must be verified so it can be presented in evidence.
Thats reallly not so hard to understand and Im amazed that you dont get it.
The whistleblower admits that he is not the party that herd all the conversation with the Ukraine. THAT TOO, is a fact. That constitutes hearsay, and Im just not 100% satisfied that it cant blow up on the Dems. Ill be very very happy if it it verified and is a robust piece of actual evidence. We aint there yet.

I am not arguing with you about the definition of the word "hearsay". That discussion is irrelevant, this isn't a courtroom.

You made a statement that is factually incorrect when you claimed that "all principles (both sides)" are saying the conrents of the whistleblower report is hearsay. The fact is that only one side is making that claim.

If you are going to continue to make this fallacious claim, back it up. Give me a single link where Pelosi or any other principle on her side says anything close to what you are claiming they said.

They aren't saying that.

now you changed your tory, before you wre arguing that you had "Evidence" and I said thats not so because both sides understand that the entire complaint is based on hearsay. I dont think anyone denies that claim. When someone presents something thats supposed to rise to the level of good evidence, the rules of evidence apply whether you believe it or not.

Talk wit your own lawyer. Its not for "courtroom s only"> Ive heard that a lawyer never asks a question to which he dosnt already know the answer.
Try to relax and think it out. One of the talking heads stated this AM that the GOP is mining the hearsay angle and the Dems are hoping they can prove that the whistleblower wasnt just blowin wind.
He could be a GOP plant who , by not finding any verification to his complaint, will have the case blow up in the DEms faces.
Dont trust anyone in this circus

I don't get your beef farmerman, are you just looking for an argument?

1. If you are making the point that more investigation is necessary and that there are almost certainly more facts that need to be uncovered... then I agree with you.

2. If you are saying that at this point there are no facts... I disagree.

- We have an official transcript of the phone call, provided by the White House and not challenged by either side.
- We have the official whistleblower complaint.
- We have official confirmation from the White House that one of the claims in the whistle blower report is in fact what happened.

3. When you say that "both sides" are claiming that the whistle blower report is "hearsay", you are making a claim that is factually incorrect. The "hearsay" argument is using a courtroom principle out of context as a way to discredit the whistleblower.

Any implication that Nancy Pelosi is repeating spin from Fox News is ridiculous.

You are being ridiculous in several ways.

1) The rules of evidence in a courtroom are to decide which pieces of evidence are admissible. Anything that doesn't meet the standard is excluded... enforced by the judge. Neither side is allowed to mention it and the jury is not allowed to consider it (or even hear it).

Explain to me how this is applicable in the impeachment hearings where members of Congress can base their decision on any consideration.

2) Do you really think that someone is going to prevent members of Congress from reading or considering the text of the whistleblower report when they decide how to vote?

Do you think this would be a good thing? (I find it a bit funny that you are picking this silly argument without having read the report yourself).

3) You keep repeating that ridiculous claim that "both sides understand that the entire complaint is based on hearsay"

Give me a single link that suggests that this is true. You are making this up.