Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
Jeremyp made the claim that Trump did it for the election. The burden of proof for that is on jeremyp. I don't know how trump has a burden of proof on a forum he isn't on.
Click to expand...

I was only repeating the blindingly obvious. If there was any legitimate reason to investigate Biden or his son, he wouldn't be asking a foreign government to announce an investigation and he wouldn't be using his personal layer for official US government business.

In fact, Trump wouldn't be doing it at all if he had a shred of integrity because Joe Biden asked the Ukraine to do something that potentially would be detrimental to his son, if his son was involved in corruption.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
So the Republicans - who don't want a trial - not only get to not have a trial, they get to blame it on the Democrats. Doesn't seem like a smart move.
Click to expand...
They do want a trial.

If they were sensible they would have a trial in which all the evidence is presented and then Trump is acquitted, probably by a vote of 53 to 47.

That would give them a great narrative going into the 2020 election.
 
Mike! said:
It has been made...

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

Why does the name, Noah Feldman seem familiar?
Click to expand...
I can find nothing in that article beyond the claim that a president isn't impeached until the articles of impeachment have been sent to the Senate. It used a lot of words, intelligently strung together, to re-iterate that claim again and again, using different words and grammar, but it never offered any logic or evidence that that claim is true.


What did I miss? Please quote specific sentences from that article that amount to evidence or logic to back up the claim, as opposed to merely re-stating the claim.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
There's also the question of whether or not it's actually legal and/or democratic. Can any Speaker of the House hold back anything they don't like which passes through Congress? If so, then what's the point of Congress?
Click to expand...

Not only is it legal, passed Articles of Impeachment were not sent to the Senate at least 3 times by my count.
 
jeremyp said:
I was only repeating the blindingly obvious. If there was any legitimate reason to investigate Biden or his son, he wouldn't be asking a foreign government to announce an investigation and he wouldn't be using his personal layer for official US government business.

In fact, Trump wouldn't be doing it at all if he had a shred of integrity because Joe Biden asked the Ukraine to do something that potentially would be detrimental to his son, if his son was involved in corruption.
Click to expand...

You are just describing the event but you claimed a motivation for the event. The event itself is not evidence of its own motivation.
 
At the very least it is a bold move that caught the Republicans off guard and showed them that Dems can play hardball, too.
 
jeremyp said:
They do want a trial.

If they were sensible they would have a trial in which all the evidence is presented and then Trump is acquitted, probably by a vote of 53 to 47.

That would give them a great narrative going into the 2020 election.
Click to expand...

They don't want a public trial with fact witnesses. They don't want Bolton and Pence and Mulvaney and Pompeo to be asked questions under oath.
 
jeremyp said:
They do want a trial.
Click to expand...

No they don't. The entire defence so far has been that there is nothing to answer to and that the proceedings are a sham, a hoax, and a coup that shouldn't be happening at all. Republican Senators have said that they're not going to look at the evidence, and McConnell is disallowing the calling of any witnesses.

They don't want a trial at all.
 
acbytesla said:
Not only is it legal, passed Articles of Impeachment were not sent to the Senate at least 3 times by my count.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Can you answer my other post, please? You haven't explained why you think this move is "incredibly smart", nor have you explained what you meant by "I'll present my evidence and you present the lies. It's all a question if the truth sells or a gish gallop."
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I don't know what you mean by this. It doesn't seem to be an explanation for how this changes anything for the better for Democrats.

If you disagree, can you explain why you disagree?
Click to expand...

You can claim it wasn't a fair trial and I can point out that the rules used were drafted by the majority Republicans 3 years ago.

You can say the President wasn't allowed due process and I can point out that the President was invited to have counsel present. Invited to testify and clarify the facts and refused both of these offers.

You can say all the witnesses only provided hearsay and yet what they said happened. And the President prevented everyone in the government from testifying.

You see every argument the Republicans keep making regarding Trump's IMPEACHMENT are brazen bald faced lies. (Gish Gallop) All easily disproven.

The GOP are selling lies to the public. It only takes a few minutes to disprove them.

Added: It is smart because we KNOW the trial in the Senate was not going to be a fair one. The GOP would go through the motions, declare the President innocent and celebrate their victory over the Democrats and they would move on with that narrative.

By leveraging the unsent Articles for a fair trial, the Democrats maintain some power. Send it without conditions, they lose it all.

Yes the GOP will wail and whine about the unfair Democrats. But I guarantee they would be saying that any way. Just as the Democrats have been whining about the almost 300 bills sent to Senate and are dying on McConnell's desk.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
You can claim it wasn't a fair trial and I can point out that the rules used were drafted by the majority Republicans 3 years ago.

You can say the President wasn't allowed due process and I can point out that the President was invited to have counsel present. Invited to testify and clarify the facts and refused both of these offers.

You can say all the witnesses only provided hearsay and yet what they said happened. And the President prevented everyone in the government from testifying.

You see every argument the Republicans keep making regarding Trump's IMPEACHMENT are brazen bald faced lies. (Gish Gallop) All easily disproven.

The GOP are selling lies to the public. It only takes a few minutes to disprove them.
Click to expand...

So? Truth no longer matters. Reality doesn't matter. It's not a good state of affairs but that's how it is. Stupidity has conquered.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
No they don't. The entire defence so far has been that there is nothing to answer to and that the proceedings are a sham, a hoax, and a coup that shouldn't be happening at all. Republican Senators have said that they're not going to look at the evidence, and McConnell is disallowing the calling of any witnesses.

They don't want a trial at all.
Click to expand...
They don't want a real trial, sure. However, since they know the outcome of any trial they hold is predetermined, they want it to happen as soon as possible. By not delivering the articles on the grounds that the Republican senators are refusing to do their jobs, the impeachment narrative remains in Democratic control.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
At the very least it is a bold move that caught the Republicans off guard and showed them that Dems can play hardball, too.
Click to expand...

They can play hardball, but can they find home plate?


A couple of days ago I said it would be a good idea. However, I think she blundered the execution. I think if she had just said, " the GOP isn't going to convict, so we're going to hold on until we have a better chance" that would be risky, but have a chance. As it is, she's making demands in a situation where she has no power. She might as well have said that if she doesn't get her way she'll hold her breath until she turns blue.
 
Paul2 said:
What did I miss? Please quote specific sentences from that article that amount to evidence or logic to back up the claim, as opposed to merely re-stating the claim.
Click to expand...

I don't believe Mike! was endorsing the article, but merely pointing out that people actually are making the argument.
 
Meadmaker said:
They can play hardball, but can they find home plate?


A couple of days ago I said it would be a good idea. However, I think she blundered the execution. I think if she had just said, " the GOP isn't going to convict, so we're going to hold on until we have a better chance" that would be risky, but have a chance. As it is, she's making demands in a situation where she has no power. She might as well have said that if she doesn't get her way she'll hold her breath until she turns blue.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? It's like you don't understand how the process works. Pelosi can deliver the impeachment articles any time she wants. That is, until this session is over. The players she's dealing with are not going to change. The only thing she can do is make demands. Now McConnell and the Senate don't have to meet those demands. Oh well. But there won't be a trial and Trump will still have been impeached.
 
theprestige said:
I tend to wonder how closely Trump's inner life matches the life his enemies imagine for him in their own heads.
Click to expand...

Trump has been mind-numbingly obvious about his simplicity (short-bus kind) since the early eighties.

Nobody who has payed any attention could possibly attribute any depth of thought to him.

I don’t think that you are so uninformed as to believe that a man who has bared his narcissism so blatantly for so long has been involved in some deep ruse his entire life.

You are more intelligent than that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom