Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rachel Maddow just broadcast one of her most brilliant pieces. I have my complaints against her, but what she just did was ********** great.

She talked about a Republican Congressman named Langrebe who was such a Nixon loyalist that he voted against accepting the congressional report on Nixon’s impeachment - which was released about 10 days *after* Nixon had resigned. And *he* said that he might think Nixon should resign *only* if there was some evidence of foreign influence into the issue. That’s how radical our current Republicans have become.

And the look on her face after she laid that out was priceless.

:clap:
 
Still don't get this whole impeachment thing.

From what I understand (admittedly limited) the republicans will just block it when it hits the senate the republicans run.

Then nothing happens

Clinton's impeachment seemed to do nothing from memory

No one even talks about it.

Is it just loads of lawyers making cash US thing or something?
 
cullennz said:
Still don't get this whole impeachment thing.

From what I understand (admittedly limited) the republicans will just block it when it hits the senate the republicans run.

Then nothing happens

Clinton's impeachment seemed to do nothing from memory

No one even talks about it.

Is it just loads of lawyers making cash US thing or something?
Click to expand...

Government money is irrelevant. And I am pretty sure all the $ will add to the GDP!

But the point of the impeachment is not to change any trump votes. Nearly all Trump voters will vote for Trump again. It will be good ammunition during the campaign year. There are minds to be changed in independents: Change their mind to show up this time to vote.
 
cullennz said:
Still don't get this whole impeachment thing.

From what I understand (admittedly limited) the republicans will just block it when it hits the senate the republicans run.

Then nothing happens
Click to expand...
The 2020 Presidential election happens, and the "impeachment thing", as it has developed so far and will continue to develop, cannot but have an influence on its outcome. It is the thing which is happening.

Clinton's impeachment seemed to do nothing from memory
Click to expand...
Because it was such a transparent stitch-up of no real consequence. It hardly needed saying. The GOP is saying nothing else, is saying it repeatedly and loudly, but in truth the stitch-up is not transparent. On the contrary, just the whistlebower's report and the partial June 25th transcript establish that something of consequence really did happen.


No one even talks about it.
Click to expand...
Because the Clinton case is not a useful example. This case didn't dribble out of the syphylitic end of years of Whitewater investigation, it emerged straight-up in your face a few months ago, and could not be ignored.
 
Tero said:
But the point of the impeachment is not to change any trump votes. Nearly all Trump voters will vote for Trump again. It will be good ammunition during the campaign year. There are minds to be changed in independents: Change their mind to show up this time to vote.
Click to expand...
Of course the impact of the impeachment thing's ongoing happening is hotly debated, but it's surely not going to be nothing. For that matter, not starting the impeachment thing in the face of behaviour so egregious would have had an impact.

What I can't envision is that Trump will benefit from a sympathy vote in reaction to a bullying Democratic Party picking on him.
 
CapelDodger said:
The 2020 Presidential election happens, and the "impeachment thing", as it has developed so far and will continue to develop, cannot but have an influence on its outcome. It is the thing which is happening.

Because it was such a transparent stitch-up of no real consequence. It hardly needed saying. The GOP is saying nothing else, is saying it repeatedly and loudly, but in truth the stitch-up is not transparent. On the contrary, just the whistlebower's report and the partial June 25th transcript establish that something of consequence really did happen.


Because the Clinton case is not a useful example. This case didn't dribble out of the syphylitic end of years of Whitewater investigation, it emerged straight-up in your face a few months ago, and could not be ignored.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if the republicans just block it when it gets to them does it actually mean anything?

Repercussions wise?
 
cullennz said:
Yeah but if the republicans just block it when it gets to them does it actually mean anything?

Repercussions wise?
Click to expand...
Yes. The manner in which the GOP dismisses the case will have repurcussions. If they simply declare "we see no evidence" while sentient observers have seen great big steaming piles of evidence presented, that will have repurcussions.
 
cullennz said:
Yeah but if the republicans just block it when it gets to them does it actually mean anything?

Repercussions wise?
Click to expand...

That's hard to say. Congress has a Constitutional duty of oversight. There was no real oversight concern with Clinton. Nobody cared. The GOP simply trying to make a popular president look bad to the voters. Exactly what they did with Hillary and Ben Ghazzi and her emails.

Does anyone believe that Newt Gingrich who cheated on multiple wives actually cared about Bill cheating on Hillary? It's funny...although I didn't laugh watching what Lindsey Graham said about the impeachment of Bill 20 years ago and Trump over the last month.
He wasn't really sincere 20 years ago or now,

Bill Clinton wasn't destroying our system of checks and balances. He wasn't conspiring and bribing foreign powers to interfere in our elections. And yet the GOP charged ahead.

If he had been he would have deserved to be impeached. Trump should be impeached not as punishment but because if we don't, there will be no limits on the Executive.

It may be futile, but some times acts of conscience have to be done any way.
 
acbytesla said:
That's hard to say. Congress has a Constitutional duty of oversight. There was no real oversight concern with Clinton. Nobody cared. The GOP simply trying to make a popular president look bad to the voters. Exactly what they did with Hillary and Ben Ghazzi and her emails.

Does anyone believe that Newt Gingrich who cheated on multiple wives actually cared about Bill cheating on Hillary? It's funny...although I didn't laugh watching what Lindsey Graham said about the impeachment of Bill 20 years ago and Trump over the last month.
He wasn't really sincere 20 years ago or now,

Bill Clinton wasn't destroying our system of checks and balances. He wasn't conspiring and bribing foreign powers to interfere in our elections. And yet the GOP charged ahead.

If he had been he would have deserved to be impeached. Trump should be impeached not as punishment but because if we don't, there will be no limits on the Executive.

It may be futile, but some times acts of conscience have to be done any way.
Click to expand...

Fair call
 
given the amount of corruption in the Trump administration that will eventually come to light, the Ukraine Scandal is small fries.

But Trump made a corrupt, criminal, direct attack against a 2020 candidate, something that cannot go unchallenged, even if the effort is mostly symbolic.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
given the amount of corruption in the Trump administration that will eventually come to light, the Ukraine Scandal is small fries.

But Trump made a corrupt, criminal, direct attack against a 2020 candidate, something that cannot go unchallenged, even if the effort is mostly symbolic.
Click to expand...

That will be lovely symbolically, but should the Dem's not try to group together in a concerted effort to just take him out in the next election?

Seems a tad misplaced energy to me, but then I don't understand US politics.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
If there is one thing we have learned it is that nothing works against Trump: he is a religious figure.
Click to expand...

Not really

He just has loads of people/media slagging him off relentlessly globally, every day and they are all too stupid to work out it is the wrong tactic, and will just backfire, to his voters

You just have to look on here

Edit: So not nothing. Just the one thing
 
Last edited:
Trump has a support network that hides the consequences of his actions and hypes his non-existing accomplishments so that no one has to face how horrible he is until after his second term.
Democrats, not having this kind of personality cult, don't have a chance against that in the court of public opinion.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Trump has a support network that hides the consequences of his actions and hypes his non-existing accomplishments so that no one has to face how horrible he is until after his second term.
Democrats, not having this kind of personality cult, don't have a chance against that in the court of public opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah because Obama and Clinton were based on pure political nouse
 
cullennz said:
Yeah because Obama and Clinton were based on pure political nouse
Click to expand...

They had plenty of detractors in their own ranks who didn't fear being primaried or buried in hate if they spoke up.
They also didn't have a propaganda network working 24/7 for them.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
They had plenty of detractors in their own ranks who didn't fear being primaried or buried in hate if they spoke up.
They also didn't have a propaganda network working 24/7 for them.
Click to expand...

Yeah ok

From what I have seen US politics is almost mostly personality politics from both sides.

You just happen to have an orange, bigoted, full of himself nutcase that is better at it at the mo' and will probably win the next election.

Tough luck.

But he can't do that much damage
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Their arguments are seriously flawed.
Click to expand...

Well, take that up with them. If you want to converse with me, you'll have to address what I've said. If our arguments truly are identical, then doing that will make no difference whatsoever. If our arguments diverge at all at any point, then by addressing their arguments rather than mine you risk posting a straw man or otherwise trying to get me to argue something that I haven't said and don't believe.

The reason for not pursuing the subpoenas was clear, it would have done no good.
Click to expand...

That doesn't alter whether or not Trump was entitled to have the courts rule on them.

Legal arguments based on what you believe someone will do in the future - whether or not you're right - are bad legal arguments. This goes doubly if what you believe someone will do in the future is "exercise their legal rights", regardless of whether or not you think they ought to have those rights or why you think they want to exercise them.

At the very, very least in order to make that argument you'd want some evidence of Trump's intent, like some leaked internal conversation or phone call transcript.

It may be inconvenient, but people have rights - even Trump - and there is a legal presumption of innocence - even for Trump. It doesn't matter what you, I, or the Democrats think. What matters is whether or not there's a good legal case to be made. For this particular Article, I think the case is weak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom