Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lurch said:
Barr **** out his 'summary' weeks before the Mueller Report was released. This festering lie was left to grow roots in the minds of the Trumpists. If a lie precedes, the truth recedes. A smart tactic, but despicable.
Click to expand...
Not only that, a very tiny number of Trumpists would ever read the Mueller report. Reading is not their thing. Foxnews and talk radio is.
 
Childlike Empress said:
One of the funs about Garrison is that he's objectively extremely talented as a cartoonist, which exposes everyone who attacks his skills as a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

Annnnd since you use Ben Garrison's pro-Trump illustrations frequently, it exposes you as a Republican hack. There isn't any question about his "skills" as an artist
 
DetectedMotion said:
Annnnd since you use Ben Garrison's pro-Trump illustrations frequently, it exposes you as a Republican hack. There isn't any question about his "skills" as an artist
Click to expand...

The weird far left-Republican alliance, ready to take down the common enemy, the Resistance against Donald Trump. :rolleyes:
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The house of representatives had sole discretion to deal with their impeachment inquiry as they saw fit and they called every witness they deemed appropriate while blocking ones selected by the Republicans. It would be one thing if the inquiry had bipartisan support and then suddenly we had partisanship become an issue... but everybody knew the impeachment and trial were going to be decided on party lines from DAY ONE of this inquiry.
Click to expand...
Give me a break. Trump told everyone he worked with not to testify, including the people that ignored his directive.

The Republicans wanted to out the whistle blower. How is that OK?

The president obstructed congress? People need be reminded that separation of powers still exist even if you think the POTUS is a scumbag. He exerted his right under the Executive branch. The House of Representatives had the right and the opportunity to respond to THAT through the Judiciary Branch. They... CHOSE.... not... to.
Click to expand...
Plenty has been written about why this happened. They... CHOSE.... not... to.... let Trump drag things out through the federal courts.

I suppose it's useless to remind you the Democrats didn't block any of the witnesses that could have cleared Trump if he were innocent, if he had nothing to hide. Any of those witnesses could have said Trump was on a mission to address corruption in Ukraine, IF...IT...WERE...TRUE, then calling Hunter Biden or the whistleblower would not have cleared Trump.

The Democrats are asking for an actual trial with witnesses. They are only asking the GOP not quash the evidence like Barr quashed the Mueller Report.
 
Last edited:
Lurch said:
Instead of reflexively assuming impeachment is all about partisan politics, with some short term goal that serves narrow interests being the driving force, isn't it even the tiniest bit *possible* that you might consider the basic motivation being to be seen as doing the *right* thing for history?

One could be given to think that the reasoning mode of the Right is to always project upon the Left that which they themselves would do.
Click to expand...

Oh, I’ve considered it. But that doesn’t fit the facts.
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh, I’ve considered it. But that doesn’t fit the facts.
Click to expand...

That's because the facts that don't fit are the 'alternate facts' adopted by the GOP. You know, like Trump really didn't want Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden; it was really all about corruption.
Trump didn't hold up the aid money until after he found out about the whistleblower report. Trump didn't ask for a 'favor' immediately after Zelensky spoke about buying more Javelin missiles from the US. Nah.....none of that is a fact.
 
Talking about Partisan Politics - convicting Trump would by far be the best strategy for Republican Senators, and quite possibly the worst for Democrats.
2020 will be a No-Trump vote if Trump is there. But if removed, will his cohorts reall show up to vote for Dems to punish the GOP?
No.
Will Less-radical Republicans fear to go moderate because of the Trump Twitter threat and risk of being primaried?
No.
Removing Trump is the safest path to retaining the Senate.

The only reason why Republicans aren't contemplating this semi-openly is because there is no credible Republican Presidential Candidate, not even The White Horse.
 
Saturday Night Live end of the opening sketch: Pelosi holds the impeachment articles in Christmas present bags and tells Trump she's going to keep his gift..."Good luck at the State of the Union." Then she's gives him the baby shark clap.

:sdl:
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Talking about Partisan Politics - convicting Trump would by far be the best strategy for Republican Senators, and quite possibly the worst for Democrats.
2020 will be a No-Trump vote if Trump is there. But if removed, will his cohorts reall show up to vote for Dems to punish the GOP?
No.
Will Less-radical Republicans fear to go moderate because of the Trump Twitter threat and risk of being primaried?
No.
Removing Trump is the safest path to retaining the Senate.

The only reason why Republicans aren't contemplating this semi-openly is because there is no credible Republican Presidential Candidate, not even The White Horse.
Click to expand...
It's a year off but this is an interesting thought. If McConnell was convinced Trump was not going to win reelection you would think he would consider dumping Trump.

But he'd be left with Pence who would win the primary because no one else is running. And Pence has less of a chance than Trump.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's a year off but this is an interesting thought. If McConnell was convinced Trump was not going to win reelection you would think he would consider dumping Trump.

But he'd be left with Pence who would win the primary because no one else is running. And Pence has less of a chance than Trump.
Click to expand...

McConnell is only looking out for no.1: McConnell. And he, personally, would probably not get re-elected if he lets Trump get convicted.
Which might be another reason why Republican Senators might welcome a Trump removal.
 
Babbylonian said:
And? Which strategy has worked for the Democrats so far? Should they just keep pretending this government is business as usual? We have a president who has literally been committing impeachable offenses since the day he took office (blatantly lying to the American people used to be an impeachable offense, and Trump has made it a daily activity) and a Senate that won't even consider bills passed by the House of Representatives.

Christ, Trump opponents complaining about the Democrats' unwillingness to fight has been a popular sport for years. Pelosi is doing something. Will it end up working? Probably not, because the Republicans have proven time and again that they don't care about anything but maintaining their power and sticking it to the liberals. But we should at least be on board with her trying to fight.
Click to expand...

The point isn't that she's fighting, it's that what she's doing is counter-productive. Democrats gain nothing by this and Republicans lose nothing. Democrats, OTOH, do lose something and the Republicans gain something. Strengthening your opponent's position while weakening your own is a bad strategy.
 
acbytesla said:
You and I see things differently Squeegee. There are two narratives being pushed today about the same events. One is the Democrats were unfair in the impeachment process and now are being unfair not sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

The Democrats have just been telling the facts. That Trump used his position and 391 million dollars to get the Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's political opponent. And then he obstructed Congress from finding out the details. And that the Senate at this time has no intention of conducting a trial without fact witnesses.

Neither of us know at this point which story the public will buy.
Click to expand...

You're trying to change the subject again. The question at hand is how Pelosi withholding the Articles is a clever move. You keep avoiding explaining why you think that that's the case. When pushed, the only explanation you've offered is that it provides her leverage, but you've not explained what leverage it gives her and how.
 
Paul2 said:
Oops, you're right,, my bad. But going back thru our exchange I can't make sense of whether one of us further mis-read the other, or changed the subject, etc. If you're willing to pick it up, go for it. Otherwise, I'll see you 'round the bend.
Click to expand...

I was questioning your assertion that Pelosi withholding the Articles from a Senate that doesn't want the articles may put enough pressure on McConnell for him to agree to the fair trial which is the opposite of what the Senate actually wants.

To my way of thinking this fails on two fronts. Firstly, the Republicans don't want a trial, so threatening not to have a trial isn't putting any pressure on them at all. What it's doing, in fact, is good for them by preventing the trial from happening and allowing them to blame the Democrats for that.

Secondly, at no point over the last 3 years have the Republicans caved to any kind of pressure and adjusted their behaviour towards fairness or honesty. What reason is there to think that this situation would be any different?
 
acbytesla said:
You're a moron if you think he doesn't.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm a moron, too. Thanks.

The Constitution doesn't say that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court becomes President of the Senate. It says the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
Click to expand...

I don't think it means what you think it means, though. He presides over the trial, but that doesn't mean his ruling act as if SCOTUS made the ruling.
 
smartcooky said:
If this impeachment was really the sham, nothing to see here that Republicans are trying to make it out to be, the numbers favouring removal would be a lot lower.
Click to expand...

I'll play devil's advocate here for a second, but: not necessarily. It could be that the Democrats have fooled enough people into supporting a sham.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom