Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[alfaniner]

Watching live, CBS. The republicans have no new defense, and some are merely babbling on about Trump achievements, not relevant to impeachment. (He fixed thing he himself broke.) Same thing they did in the committee hearings, a few new faces.

...

I despise those spittle-flecked, ranting, hypocritical, disingenuous, flat-out lying Republicans spewing their ******** today, of which Collins is the best example. At least they are only limited to a couple minutes each this time around.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It doesn't say anything about using the Senate's rules.

Senate rules for impeachment

Form of oath to be administered to the Members of the Senate and the
Presiding Officer sitting in the trial of impeachments

``I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in
all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of ----
-- ------, now pending, I will do impartial justice according
to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.''

That they have to be impartial is in the rules.

As I say, if their own words that they are not impartial isn't enough to see them recused, then it could, at least, lead to a perjury charge as the oath would be falsely sworn.

Not that I expect anybody to be recused or charged with perjury in this environment. But it's what should happen, according to the rules of impeachment.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

This week will be the highpoint of the next year for Democrats, so enjoy. It's all downhill from here.

 

[I Am The Scum]

The third angle is that he was compelling Ukraine to investigate the bidens conflict of interest, and dealing with whether or not the leadership in ukraine was getting its own corruption under control

No, Donald Trump does not have a principled stance against corruption, particularly the kind that occurs in foreign countries. You might as well say that he was trying to promote vegetarianism.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The highpoint will be when Republicans take the Oath - and get smited by God where they stand.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: who is to blame for the impeachment being a 'circus'...

The people who have made the inquiry a circus are the Republicans, with their sit-in pizza party (to protest a closed hearing that they could have attended), demands to talk to witnesses that are at best irrelevant and at worse illegal (such as the whistleblower), Trump's regular barrage of tweets and lies, etc.

Your counter argument about equal blame is a fallacy and a strawman though.

I don't really think you understand what those 2 terms mean.

The democrats, or rather nadler in particular have made an extravaganza making political theater (remember his big 'parody' read on the ukraine transcripts?), his drama play in the actual impeachment hearings just last week.

Seriously?

The republicans have constantly engaged in various stunts for months.... some unethical, some downright illegal. And your response is "Oh, some Democrat changed some words when he read the transcript". Sorry, the 2 situations are nowhere near comparable.

Having control over the process in the house of representatives of the impeachment inquiry...

If the republicans actually had something useful to contribute, I'm sure the Democrats would listen. But since all the republicans do is lie, gaslight, and grandstand, I can't see why the Democrats would actually bother letting the republicans have ANY control.

and presenting witnesses that are largely hearsay

Ah yes, the whole "hearsay" lie. You hear it quite often from Republicans.

The fact is, in a court of law, hearsay is often quite admissible, and can be just as valuable in a probative sense than direct evidence.

and havent help their case in persuading public opinion aside from those that already agreed with impeachment to begin with...

First of all, if you break the law, you should get punished, regardless of how 'popular' such an opinion is among the general public. Trump abused his position as president, he should be impeached.

Secondly, while its true that support for impeachment is 'stuck' around 50%, that has more to do with the stupidity of Trump's supporters than with the validity of the impeachment proceedings.

making a huge deal out of bribery before they even debated its inclusion into the impeachment articles...

Trump engaged in either bribery or extortion (depending on how its viewed). Its quite obvious, based on the transcripts that Trump expects everyone to read, as well as the testimony of various witnesses.

pushing a 'sky is falling' narrative about how Trump is a dictator and a tyrant...

Trump is trying to rig the 2020 election by abusing the power of the presidency. May not exactly be a 'dictator', but its certainly illegal and unethical behavior.

Can say plenty about their inquiry and handling of such.

I'm sure you can. But I'm pretty sure anything you say will be regurgitated lies, gaslighting, and other such rhetoric that the republicans have been engaged in.

The impeachability aspect hinges on whether or not his intent in making the phone call was purely for his personal gain and whether he bribed the president of Ukraine to force them to investigate the Bidens.

Which is obviously the case.

They obviously have had trouble making the bribery case if they amended the impeachment articles to the point of in not being the primary offense.

The democrats decided to simplify the articles of impeachment. That doesn't mean the attempted bribery/extortion are being ignored.

By the way, your 'gaslighting' claim is also a strawman. I've said before that trumps call to Ukraine places him in the wrong. Democrats could have gotten some bipartisanship on a censure of him.

What a fantasy world you live in.

Given the way the republicans have been acting, I'm pretty sure any attempt to downgrade the charges against trump from impeachment to censure would not result in bipartisan support. Instead, it would give people like Moscow Mitch and Devin "I'm suing a cow" nunes to claim "See? The Democrats can't impeach so Trump must be innocent... no censure!"

 

[DetectedMotion]

This week will be the highpoint of the next year for Democrats, so enjoy. It's all downhill from here.

You are correct; It's all downhill for the Republicans from here.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

You are correct; It's all downhill for the Republicans from here.

You clearly don't see what's coming. Good, it will be a surprise.

 

[Shalamar]

You clearly don't see what's coming. Good, it will be a surprise.

What's coming? Your desire for one party conservative rule? Civil war to kill all the dirty libs?

Well?

 

[plague311]

Well, let me enlighten you. There is none. The process is that each senator gets one vote, regardless of whether anyone thinks they ought to for any reason.

I guess I'm not really arguing that they shouldn't get a vote, just that they if they knowingly break the oath they are taking there should be consequences.

The biggest thing I've learned throughout this whole thing is how ******* useless the government is when it comes to stuff like this. Every time some ****** up thing happens there's never anything anyone can do unless they're in the majority. It's pissing in the wind. I know it's not your fault or anything, it's just getting sickening to hear.

 

[shemp]

I'm sure that the so-called Founding Fathers would be aghast at all of this. But they might not find it entirely unexpected. They knew the dangers of opening up democracy to an unintelligent, uninformed and uncaring electorate.

Edited to add: They understood the danger of such an electorate being manipulated by a demagogue.

 

[Meadmaker]

I guess I'm not really arguing that they shouldn't get a vote, just that they if they knowingly break the oath they are taking there should be consequences.

The biggest thing I've learned throughout this whole thing is how ******* useless the government is when it comes to stuff like this. Every time some ****** up thing happens there's never anything anyone can do unless they're in the majority. It's pissing in the wind. I know it's not your fault or anything, it's just getting sickening to hear.

Ok. But in this case, what would "impartial" even mean? The facts are clear and undisputed (except by a few crazy people). Does what he did warrant removal from office?

Based on a senator's answer, how would we decide if they were being partial or impartial?

All this forum talk about crimes and perjury and recusals is just internet nonsense. Sadly, though, various media outlets are encouraging such absurdity.

 

[plague311]

Ok. But in this case, what would "impartial" even mean? The facts are clear and undisputed (except by a few crazy people). Does what he did warrant removal from office?

Based on a senator's answer, how would we decide if they were being partial or impartial?

All this forum talk about crimes and perjury and recusals is just internet nonsense. Sadly, though, various media outlets are encouraging such absurdity.

As squeegee said, the Senator's have openly admitted it. They've said they're not going to be impartial.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[Stacyhs]

Watching live, CBS. The republicans have no new defense, and some are merely babbling on about Trump achievements, not relevant to impeachment. (He fixed thing he himself broke.) Same thing they did in the committee hearings, a few new faces.

This reminds me of the oil pipeline hearings I went to. There were public statements made live in a room, some 300 spoke in 8 hours. The welders, about 50, all read an identical statement made for them to read.

I watched about 10 minutes this morning and had to stop as I was beginning to literally feel sick. I couldn't stand the repetition of the same drivel by the Republicans: "they lost the elections and can't get over it" and "witch hunt'" nonsense.

Frankly, I'm totally disgusted by the Republicans' behavior and have nothing but contempt for them. Shame on them.

 

[shemp]

I'm watching and I've got to say that this is just sheer, unadulterated, soul-gripping excitement!

Not.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ok. But in this case, what would "impartial" even mean?

The thing Mitch McConnell has already admitted he doesn't intend to be.

We don't have to hangring about the definition of facts that are already in evidence and not in dispute.

 

[AnonyMoose]

Wow.

Every single republican that's been up there so far is pathetically lacking in any kind of neural synapse firings. I had no idea all one needed to become a member of congress was an eighth grade education... Plus the brown lipstick they're wearing today really clashes with their elongated noses.

The eyes of the world are watching this republican circus today. What an abysmal embarrassment for the entire country.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

There's a Buddhist saying "there are some things in this world that you cannot change, so you shouldn't worry about them. There are some things in this world that you can change, so you shouldn't worry about them".

I find that very worrisome.

 

[Meadmaker]

Wow.

Every single republican that's been up there so far is pathetically lacking in any kind of neural synapse firings. I had no idea all one needed to become a member of congress was an eighth grade education.

And yet, they all ran against someone who also had at least an eighth grade education, so it must require something more than that.

It requires you to be capable of pandering to people with an eighth grade education. However, that is not a trait exclusive to Republicans.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I’ve never identified as a Democrat, but certainly find myself rooting for them in this fight.

As such, I think they’re misplaying this very badly.

The bits I’ve heard today have the Republicans emphasizing “There’s not even an underlying crime”. That’s why I still assert that the better play would have been to include at least several of the “real” crimes where Mueller outlined all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice. And at least one or more emoluments violations. Unless the Dems have something up their sleeves, I don’t thing this minimalist tack is working for them.