Unamerican Secret Trial presided by Democrat Adam Schiff

[PaulinVA]

I wish people would refrain from hyperbolic comments like , 'Oh, yeah, you just wait and see" or predicting how the House or Senate will vote, based on partisanship and not an analysis of the issues.

We’ve been going on for months (years?) flogging our own partisan points, with very little insightful analysis or comments. I’ve been perusing other parts of CAF (I’ve been a member for years) and notice that everyone that posts here is really nice and able to discuss non-political issues quite well.

I am guilty as well, and will try to refrain from straight partisanship.

 

[Woodyl57]

I am guilty as well, and will try to refrain from straight partisanship.

Point taken and agreed. Guilty as charged here and it can quickly escalate. When something is stated as “Obvious” and others disagree it can be taken as personally.

I expect some tension as political issues are sensitive.

Thanks

 

[PaulinVA]

I expect some tension as political issues are sensitive.

Me, too. I am frightened by impeachment, frankly. It was one thing to look at Clinton and see if lying to a grand jury was enough to remove from office. It’s another to separate all of the other things from just the TRump Ukraine thing and see if it rises to removal from office.

Removal from office is nuclear. We have to be really sure the accusations are re true AND they are what the founding fathers were thinking about.

 

[Woodyl57]

Absolutely.

The divisive climate today is far worse than 1998 as well. Nothing easy about it.

 

[Convert3]

, from massive credit card debt to underage drinking in high school to multiple accusations of untoward behavior towards women.

Sounds like most of our presidents too.

 

[PickyPicky]

Removal from office is nuclear. We have to be really sure the accusations are re true AND they are what the founding fathers were thinking about

This is one of the problems with republics operating executive presidencies. In a parliamentary system if the head of government acts inappropriately or embarrassingly, or is just plainly not up to the job, he/she can be shuffled out of office. The US system elevates removing a dangerous or incompetent or just plainly unfitted President (between elections) to an almighty judicial affair.

Not saying the system is wrong, just that this is one of its drawbacks.

 

[Woodyl57]

I think the fact the executive branch of the US has gotten too much power over the years that maybe it shouldn’t have or didn’t originally have.

 

[tomarin]

Shuffled out how? By whom? What if the chief executive refuses to go?

 

[PickyPicky]

Shuffled out how? By whom?

Well, for a British example, just take a look at the removal of Mrs May. Or, in times past, the removal of Mr Chamberlain, or of Mr (as he then was) Lloyd George, or of Mrs (as she then was) Thatcher.

 

[tomarin]

I guess what confuses me, is that in the American system impeachment and removal is reserved for the gravest of crises, whereas what you’ve cited above just seems (to me) to be the routine obsolescence of a PM’s leadership.

 

[PickyPicky]

I don’t know about routine, but in a way you are just making my point: an American President cannot be removed mid-term for incompetence or ignorance or policy failures or lack of leadership or disgraceful personal behaviour or damage to the body politic — one could go on categorising the potential causes of a prime minister’s rejection from office — but only for “high crimes and misdemeanours” in the gravest of crises.

 

[PickyPicky]

what you’ve cited above just seems (to me) to be the routine obsolescence of a PM’s leadership.

I think, by the way, that in the cases of Mr Chamberlain and Mrs May the gravest of crises were indeed being played out, and yet no unending pseudo-judicial proceedings were necessary to effect the changes.

 

[tomarin]

Prime ministers don’t serve out fixed terms, so they just keep on going along until they become so unpopular that they get voted out of office by their party members in Parliament, or their party loses their majority to the other party in a general election, whichever comes first. Whereas our president is the head of a distinct branch that is separate from the legislature, yet is beholden to that legislature according to the system of checks and balances. He can be voted out of office, or serve out two terms, or (in extreme case) be impeached and removed from office. I think both systems work fine.

 

[HarryStotle]

Woodyl57:

Seems to you only truth that pertains to going after Trump is relevant.

The issue at hand is: Did Trump try to abuse his power to obtain dirt against Biden and sought ot cover up his wrongdoing.

That would be the Schiff talking point version of what happened.

Fortunately there is a great deal of evidence coming down the pipeline that shows Biden was indeed using his position as VP to pressure the Ukrainian prosecutor to drop an ACTIVE case against Burisma and the whistleblower was in fact working for Biden at the time. Remember the name Charlie. it will be important.

Schiff is hiding a lot and attempting to bury it by controlling the narrative.

Fortunately, impeachment has to go to the Senate where testimony will open the investigation to the complete truth rather than the half-truths and made up narrative that Schiff is pushing.

The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name

By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigationsOctober 30, 2019, 4:21 PM Eastern For a town that leaks like a sieve, Washington has done an astonishingly effective job keeping from the American public the nam

www.realclearinvestigations.com

https://johnsolomonreports.com/debu...-myths-about-biden-and-election-interference/

 

[HarryStotle]

Woodyl57:

Shame is on them trying to uncover the truth

We have protection for whistle blowers because of our interest in the the truth.

Which is why the criteria for whistleblowing was magically altered to include hearsay so that gossip now attains the level of confidentiality?

Protection for whistleblowers at the level Schiff is operating could easily include someone’s interest in the protection of liars and frauds. How is anyone to know that, except Schiff, himself a proven liar? Didn’t have contact with the whistleblower but then he did. Schiff ought to be the first to testify before the Senate when it goes there, hopefully without delay.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I guess what confuses me, is that in the American system impeachment and removal is reserved for the gravest of crises, whereas what you’ve cited above just seems (to me) to be the routine obsolescence of a PM’s leadership.

I agree and this impeachment process is being abused as far as I am concerned.
These democrats are not the least sorry they are putting the country through this just like they weren’t sorry for puttting the country through several months of
torture while we endured the Mueller investigation and they weren’t sorry for
what they put the country through during the Kavanaugh hearings. It is all about the democrats and the power they want to hold over everyone. They are the biggest bullies because they still are in shock that Hillary lost to Trump and
roh-roh, none of their 2020 candidates look very strong so they see the writing on the wall for 2020.
Americans need to demand a political party can never be able to put the country through what the democrats have put us through the last 3 years ever again!!!

 

[Woodyl57]

I have to agree. If Trump is guilty, which I do not believe to be the case, then he should be held accountable.

But 7_Sorrows mention the Kavanaugh case along with other examples and that case was so disturbing to me what the opposition was willing to assume without any fair thought process.

 

[dvdjs]

evidence coming down the pipeline

When it arrives it will be something to consider.

Protection for whistleblowers at the level Schiff is operating could easily include someone’s interest in the protection of liars and frauds.

Since the whistle blower’s story has, through evidence gathered in the investigation that it launched, led to an vote to pursue a formal impeachment inquiry, that issue - a deflection - is moot.

 

[dvdjs]

that case was so disturbing to me what the opposition was willing to assume without any fair thought process.

What was disturbing was what was dismissed without an hones investigative process or an critical thought process.

 

[Woodyl57]

Yes, you are right. No one…NO ONE would dare look into the background or dig up the past of the accuser. Did she take advantage of that? Who knows. Those against Kavanaugh hid behind feminism and shaming anyone try to seek the truth.