• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
url=https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/24/giuliani-ally-would-testify-that-nunes-staffers-hid-ukraine-meetings-from-schiff.html]Parnas wants to testify to Congress that Nunes (and his staff) purposely hid his activities re Ukraine from Adam Schiff[/url]
Click to expand...
I guess the big question is: can they obtain supporting evidence in a timely manner.

I do believe Parnas' claims are credible. I also think that Nunes probably should be kicked out of congress for illegal activity. However, Parnas was arrested over some pretty significant charges, and his arrest came when he was fleeing the country. If the republicans themselves were not so dirty, I would question just how credible Parnas is. In a case of he-said/he-said, where both individuals are criminals, supporting evidence becomes important.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Is that a serious question? : boggled :
Click to expand...

Yes.

The point of the impeachment inquiry is to -
a) determine if there is enough evidence to make a case for removal
b) assemble such a case for presentation to the Senate

At some point, it makes sense to ask if the House has enough evidence to make a case, and if they are ready to proceed to the Senate.

Are we at that point? Or does the House not yet know enough for sure, to argue for removal based on the evidence?
 
"Enough evidence for a case" and "Someway to convince the cult that their leader isn't God" aren't the same thing.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"Enough evidence for a case" and "Someway to convince the cult that their leader isn't God" aren't the same thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, and therefore the question arises. Is there enough evidence for a case? Could the House make a complete and evidenced argument for removal at this point?

If we take for granted that the Senate will not vote to remove, regardless of how good the House's case is, does that change whether a good case can now be made?
 
JoeMorgue said:
"Enough evidence for a case" and "Someway to convince the cult that their leader isn't God" aren't the same thing.
Click to expand...



Yeah, this. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't a high enough standard to convince the GOP senators to convict. "Beyond an unreasonable doubt" is also pretty much off the table at this point. We need "So little doubt that even the most corrupt ******** in the Senate finally feel some shame in trying to publicly claim there's still some doubt" levels of evidence.
 
Horatius said:
Yeah, this. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't a high enough standard to convince the GOP senators to convict. "Beyond an unreasonable doubt" is also pretty much off the table at this point. We need "So little doubt that even the most corrupt ******** in the Senate finally feel some shame in trying to publicly claim there's still some doubt" levels of evidence.
Click to expand...

Seriously? What's the point of the impeachment proceedings, then? To make GOP senators feel at least a little bit of shame when they vote to keep President Trump in office?

Are House Democrats really not aiming any higher than that?
 
theprestige said:
"Enough evidence for a case" and "Someway to convince the cult that their leader isn't God" aren't the same thing.
Click to expand...
Yes, and therefore the question arises. Is there enough evidence for a case? Could the House make a complete and evidenced argument for removal at this point?
Click to expand...
Yes, completely and totally.

We have known there was enough evidence for Trump's removal with the Mueller report. We knew there was enough evidence for his removal over the various emoluments violations that are currently working their way through the legal system. And we know there's enough evidence for his removal over his Ukraine activity.

If we take for granted that the Senate will not vote to remove, regardless of how good the House's case is, does that change whether a good case can now be made?
Click to expand...
A good case is a good case, regardless, even if its being presented to a totally biased and corrupt jury (i.e. republican senators).

Now, the question might be raised is "is it worth the time and effort to present a good case if the outcome is pre-determined", and again I'd have to say the question is "Yes", for several reasons:

- Voters deserve to have as much information about their potential elected representatives when they go to the ballot box in 2020. This includes potential Trump voters (who should know about his illegal activities) and potential congressional voters (who should know how their congress-critter has responded to the impeachment)

- Impeachment is still a black mark against a president, and when society looks back on the Trump years, they will hopefully see "This was a corrupt president, backed by corrupt republicans in congress, and supported by racist voters who were happy with his corruption". Compare that to Bill Clinton's impeachment, where the common image is "he was impeached for oral sex" (which is not quite correct, but it shows what happens when the case for impeachment is weak.)
 
theprestige said:
Seriously? What's the point of the impeachment proceedings, then? To make GOP senators feel at least a little bit of shame when they vote to keep President Trump in office?

Are House Democrats really not aiming any higher than that?
Click to expand...


The hope is that, if they actually start to feel some shame, they'll actually start to do their jobs in the way the job is supposed to be done.

The expectation is that such hope is forlorn, and the shameless, traitorous sycophants will expose themselves as the lying, corrupt sacks of **** that they are. This will hopefully so enrage the public at large with their obvious corruption and treason that every last one of the bastards is voted out of office.

We're well past the stage of politics as usual in the US. We need to expose these people for what they are, and hope that the public acts on it. If the voting public fails, then democracy in the US is functionally dead.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Seriously? What's the point of the impeachment proceedings, then? To make GOP senators feel at least a little bit of shame when they vote to keep President Trump in office?

Are House Democrats really not aiming any higher than that?
Click to expand...


1/ Impeachment is going forward to establish a historical record of what happened, and to tell future presidents "You can't do this without consequences." Even if Trump doesn't get removed, he will have been impeached and tried, a fate most normal Presidents would try hard to avoid.

2/ A trial in the Senate will require every Senator to cast a vote. For the ones who are up for re-election in purple states in 2020, a vote for Trump will work against them and might cost them their job.
 
Last edited:
Trump Tweets

Support for Impeachment is dropping like a rock, down into the 20’s in some Polls. Dems should now get down to work and finally approve USMCA, and much more!

“The Democrats are getting hit and slammed on Impeachment. It is getting less and less popular by the day.” @kilmeade @foxandfriends
 
JoeMorgue said:
If you're a Trumper "technically no" if you're a sane person multiple times.
Click to expand...

Great, I'm not a Trumper, so I can be easily convinced.

Name one time that Trump said he withheld the aid in order to get the Ukrainians to investigate Biden or Burisma.

Thanks.
 
theprestige said:
Seriously? What's the point of the impeachment proceedings, then? To make GOP senators feel at least a little bit of shame when they vote to keep President Trump in office?

Are House Democrats really not aiming any higher than that?
Click to expand...


Saying in the most severe constitutional format (impeachment) that this s*** is NOT OK is a lot more than holding new conference to complain about the president's behavior, and is even more than a resolution of censure.


And, even if it is not enough to remove him from office, the House needs to live up to their role, one has to do what one can, and what one should, even if on the basis of principle. It's playing a longer game than just the Trump presidency.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom