Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
The House has brought two additional Articles of Impeachment:

  • Making three speeches with intent to "attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States".
  • Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions.


On February 24, 1868, but I think they fit Trump perfectly
Click to expand...

It's pretty stark how the standards have fallen.

When Nixon was about to be impeached, "lying to the public" was going to be one of the articles against him. It was generally understood that President must be truthful with the American people in order to be fit for office. Not just when under oath, all the time when it came to matters of importance.

Of course, Trump has lied about every single scandal of his administration with zero consequence.

The Washington post drops a huge report saying that multiple administrations have been lying about the nature of the Afghanistan war and it passes largely without comment. Lying to the public is just what the president does, it seems.
 
Minoosh said:
Are there really Dems congressmen who said they were with Trump? And why does he sign off with "Russia Today"?
Click to expand...

Trump is a terrorist. He is inciting violence against his political opposition.

Americans are allowed to defend ourselves with deadly force.
Every Trump is an armed violent aggressor.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Linsey Graham just said this: “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

Seeing as how the Senate will be conducting a trial in which the “jurors” will have to affirm they will be impartial, it seems incumbent on both Graham and McConnell to recuse themselves.

I’m just wondering if the Chief Justice can exclude them as jurors, as would be automatic in any “normal” trial.
Click to expand...

Republican Senators are traitors. There should be gibbets erected outside the Capital ready to accept their bodies.
 
Belz... said:
And that, ladies and gentlement, is the level of Republican arguing.
Click to expand...

Nah. My arguments tend to be several paragraphs long, usually laying out some assumptions or axioms, and then my conclusions from them. Sometimes they take the form of inquiry about the details, basis, or implications of someone else's arguments.

These brief posts are me just chatting a bit in between interesting ideas.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Rudy Giuliani Tweeted

@RudyGiuliani
Budapest | Kiev | Vienna
Click to expand...
Given Rudi's propensity for lies and fantasies to ingratiate himself with his master, and some of these "sources" are notable Ukrainian criminals, I would put exactly zero stock in the veracity of this information. Nor is it relevant to the impeachment even if it were all true. But I fully expect Donny will trot it out shortly.
 
theprestige said:
Nah. My arguments tend to be several paragraphs long, usually laying out some assumptions or axioms, and then my conclusions from them. Sometimes they take the form of inquiry about the details, basis, or implications of someone else's arguments.

These brief posts are me just chatting a bit in between interesting ideas.
Click to expand...

Gee, would you mind presenting us with an interesting idea? It's been a while.
 
Armitage72 said:
Why do I suspect that these documents will be produced around the same time as the evidence about President Obama that Trump's investigators found in Hawaii?
Click to expand...

All they have to do is claim they have evidence. They never produce it, it's a pattern, as we all know.

In this case, remember Trump only wanted Zelensky to say he was opening an investigation.

That got cut short so Rudy's just taking up where the failure left off.
 
theprestige said:
Nah. My arguments tend to be several paragraphs long, usually laying out some assumptions or axioms, and then my conclusions from them. Sometimes they take the form of inquiry about the details, basis, or implications of someone else's arguments.

These brief posts are me just chatting a bit in between interesting ideas.
Click to expand...
It's not how long your argument was, it's that all you got is a contrived tu quoque.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Given Rudi's propensity for lies and fantasies to ingratiate himself with his master, and some of these "sources" are notable Ukrainian criminals, I would put exactly zero stock in the veracity of this information. Nor is it relevant to the impeachment even if it were all true. But I fully expect Donny will trot it out shortly.
Click to expand...

Rudolph the long-nosed lawyer!
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
All they have to do is claim they have evidence. They never produce it, it's a pattern, as we all know.
Click to expand...
I recall how, during the Whitewater investigation, Starr would pop up every few months announcing an imminent blockbuster announcement. Followed by a few months of silence before the same thing again.

In this case, remember Trump only wanted Zelensky to say he was opening an investigation.
Click to expand...
To no good purpose, since Biden could be smeared without it. In fact Trump could simply announce that an investigation had been opened and his sad-act following would believe it.

That got cut short so Rudy's just taking up where the failure left off.
Click to expand...
It'll be interesting to see what he's got and how he responds to questions about it. A melt-down is not out of the question. Will Graham's hearings be public? I'm thinking not.
 
CapelDodger said:
To no good purpose, since Biden could be smeared without it. In fact Trump could simply announce that an investigation had been opened and his sad-act following would believe it.
Click to expand...
I wondered about that. Why didn't Trump just tweet that Ukraine was investigating Biden? Nobody smart would have taken his word for it, but nobody smart was going to vote for him anyway.
 
Minoosh said:
I wondered about that. Why didn't Trump just tweet that Ukraine was investigating Biden? Nobody smart would have taken his word for it, but nobody smart was going to vote for him anyway.
Click to expand...
Quite. The Biden smear was out there while this scheme was going on, and the Republicans are running with it anyway, so this Ukrainian investigation was an utterly needless embellishment.

While it bears all the hallmarks of a moron trying to be clever I think this was Giuliani's idea. The smear was out there, and he'd played a part in that on the talk-show circuit, but he wasn't being recognised as having a central role in the story. So he decided he could use his Ukrainian connections (Parnas and Fruman, oops) to place himself front and centre. He sold it to Trump, and Trump bought it like any moron would.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Given Rudi's propensity for lies and fantasies to ingratiate himself with his master, and some of these "sources" are notable Ukrainian criminals, I would put exactly zero stock in the veracity of this information. Nor is it relevant to the impeachment even if it were all true. But I fully expect Donny will trot it out shortly.
Click to expand...

He already retweeted it, that's where I picked it up
 
theprestige said:
Are you talking about TV appearances and media mentions?
Click to expand...
I'm talking about someone who's made self-promotion his mission in life while engaging in a mass of litigation (which is thoroughly documented). As a moron he's been quite incapable of concealing his true nature. Where do you want to draw the lines in that beyond which you don't care to look?

Trump was not sent from Heaven in 2016 to Make America Great Again, without backstory. Really, He wasn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom