"House Democrats may call new impeachment witnesses if Senate doesn't"

Uber is not a good play for any serious investor, even on speculation. It is basically a cab company with a ton of regulatory and labor hurdles. There are though many other great growth companies that never showed profits for years yet they grew into the worlds largest comanies in terms of market capitalizations of over a trillion USD. Shareholders who bought low have all benefited generously from companies like Google, Amazon & Apple to name a few.

 

Getting off topic here, but I am happy to talk about Uber etc in some other Thread. Might have some Uber drivers here who can offer useful contributions.

 

I know a really good US company that makes pillows and now mattresses too if that's where you prefer to save.

 

Still prima facie evidences does not substantiate any impeachment expulsion proceedings the exact person who would scrutinize and deliberate on that is only presiding. Impeachment is only effective if you one have the political edge.

 

Are the House Democrats saying that they did a crap job of impeachment? Now they want a do over.

 

Yes, and that is why the entire process is useless, if not absurd, if not inherently corrupt. Politicians have to be removed from the impeachment process. This Trump thing highlights the fact that the GOP is doing all it can to suppress the truth when it ought to be doing the exact opposite. (Sure, if the boot was on the other foot, the Democrats would be doing the same...which is the point.)

 

That will depend on how the Senate treats new evidence. Nothing stops the House from multiple consecutive 'impeachments.' If that is what it takes to get to the truth, then that is what should happen.

 

Yup, when it comes to political issues it's very hard to attain an unbiased proceedings, everything is decided on votes and partisanship it's the same if we would ask a referendum from the entire US citizenry. Majority always rules in Democracy.

 

That's what it boils down to. For weeks they investigated Trump and company on issues that they did not charge him for in the Impeachment articles. Then they impeach him for things that are not even recognized as impeachable offenses and then they start scrambling to find evidence to actually fit the charges. Back-rumpwards come to mind.

 

This is just a strategy to drag out the Senate's part in this. The House had their shot. They decided not to take time to enforce their subpoenas through the courts because they were in a hurry before Pelosi proved that the need for haste wasn't an issue at all by sitting on the article for almost a month after they were done. Schiff said that they weren't going to sue the White House to enforce their subpoena. They never sued the White House. The one suit that they did follow through with was dismissed.

Adam Schiff:
"We will not allow the White House to delay our investigation. Any acts of obstruction like this, any effort to prevent the Congress and therefore the American people from learning more about the president's misconduct will merely build a pubic case for obstruction of Congress by this President."

 

Speaking of Amy and Lizzy, I saw the NYT endorsed BOTH of them for President today.... How does that work??

Anyhow, I've been on team Amy since day 1 of her announcement..... I think if America thought about it, she's fit all the checkboxes we need right now...

Common sense, female, experience, not old, not way out left, not Trump...

Love to see her be the last one standing...

 

Put a fork in it, it’s done...and the Dems are going to lose big...not because they are wrong, but because they’re so inept they couldn’t win a slam dunk in a contest with children under 4ft.

Trump is as guilty as the devil, and the Dems can’t even pinch his tail. Unbelievable—If they had been persecuting Scott Peterson, Scott would be a free man today.

 

Guilty of what? Perhaps you can do a better job explaining than the dems.

 

Would it matter to you? If he took a child and put a bullet through it’s brain, Would it matter to you? I suspect not, just as along as he fights against the Progressives, against the PC crowd, against the Yellow Peril, and against the gun control advocates, and fights for the Religious Right, fights for the WASPs, fights for the AR-15 nuts, fights for prison for women deciding not to have babies, and fights for the anti-immigration goons, you don’t care what he does, including using the treasury to bribe foreign officials to act as hired guns to destroy his enemies.

He’s an unprincipled buffoon—such is the state of our leadership today—Buffoons and political goons.

And the Alt-Right says: To hell with morality, I have a family to feed, a 401k to grow, and weekend warrior retreat to practice civil war and revolution.

And the President Buffoon says: To hell with morality, I have an election to win. Let me see whose prejudices and fears I can inflame today.

And I say, read Ayn Rand:
“A majority without an ideology is a helpless mob, to be taken over by anyone . . . . Political freedom requires much more than the people’s wish. It requires an enormously complex knowledge of political theory and of how to implement it in practice.“—http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ideology.html

To “Make America Great Again”, one must first know what made America great.

 

Trump: Helping the Leftist enemies of liberty win the future by feeding off of the fears and prejudices of the Alt-Right nationalists.

 

Do you at all hold The House Dems responsible for pushing through a rushed impeachment that didn't even try to give you the complete story?

 

Your comment doesn't distinguish the difference between the Democrat and Republican opportunities to call witnesses.

The House Democrats had every legal avenue to pursue a court determination of any witness they wanted to call.

On the other hand, the House Republicans were denied the ability to have a Minority witness day.

 

This is completely untrue. The House had every opportunity, and the means, and the legal right, to use the courts to compel witness testimony, and demand documents. The House voluntarily chose NOT to make use of the courts towards those ends. Nobody forced the House to bypass standard and accepted due process procedures and go straight to a political impeachment, that was completely and totally their own decision.

Do you know why they made that decision?

 

No... subpoenas for documents and witnesses were ignored and the courts have demonstrably moved too slow to be of any use before the election in question.

 

1 month ago.... Democrats = Parnas is a criminal and can't be trusted!
1 week ago...... Democrats = Parnas is a trusted start witness!

We can't make this crap up.

 

No judiciary subpoenas were ignored, not a single one, because there were none, because the House Dems took NOTHING to the judiciary.

Here we see Obama ignoring and blocking actually judiciary subpoenas, and even invoking executive privilege in the process, for FOUR YEARS.

Yeah,that sort of obstruction is just fine and dandy, but it's supposedly an impeachable offense when Trump ignores a bunch of toothless House subpoenas that they never even attempted to take to the judiciary?

Utterly ridiculous.

 

Exactly. And since the House has the sole power of impeachment, it has the right to subpoena witnesses and documents; it does not have the obligation to run to the courts when an unlawful, rogue "presuhdint" refuses to comply with the law---the obstruction charges are dead on.

 

Correct. The House is not obligated to run to the courts to have their subpoenas enforced. They have every right to bypass that standard procedure, and not hear witness testimony, nor compel any documents to be turned over. The House doesn't have to "get the real story", and they chose not to. They chose a completely political impeachment rather than one based on actual evidence of actual crimes having been committed.

And here we are today listening to the House Dems whine that the Senate needs to do what they purposely failed to do.

 

Question.

Would you consider this an impeachable offense?

How is that not "Obstruction of Congress"?

 

Nobody said that.

A scumbag "presuhdint" or a scumbag wannabe Ukrainian mobster....a credibility toss-up.