Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
Hell ******* YEAH! 40 ******* House Seats flipped! Almost every single race the GOP lost ground. If they won a seat by 18 points in 2016, they only won by 10 in 2018. If they won by 10 they won or lost by a point in 2016. If it was less than that the seat flipped.
Click to expand...

*Very slowly* But they only won a slight majority in the... part of Congress I'm almost at the point of declaring I don't know why we even bother having it.

2 Senators is more useful of a gain then 41 Representatives.

Don't play Moneyball with me and go "Okay they lost in every possible way we actually measure winning and losing but LOOK AT HOW THEIR METRICS WENT UP!"

When your team gets fewer runs, goals, and touchdowns then the other team YOU STILL LOST even if your RBI, Shots on Goals, and Forward Pass Completion percentages all went up more then the other teams.

Last night Carolina played Florida in hockey. We had twice the shots on goal. We won more faceoffs. We still lost because they put the puck in the back of the net more times then we did.

We lost. We didn't achieve some new, alternative form of winning.

I'm... so... very... ASTERISKS.... tired... of... the... Dems... winning... in... ways... that... aren't.... winning.

I'm tired of hearing about how much winning they are doing in the alternative universe where the system is fair.

I'm tired of the big win coming any day now.

I'm tired of "This thing we've done a billion times before and achieved nothing is going to work this time."
 
Meadmaker said:
Withholding the articles would just be a simple way of acknowledging reality. If she had said something along the lines of "We know he won't be convicted by the Republican Senate, so we aren't going to go through with a trial. We believe that in the coming months more evidence will come forward that will make a conviction possible, so we will wait and proceed at that point."
Click to expand...

But this was known before the impeachment began. And the time for gathering evidence for a conviction before the Articles are sent is during the impeachment process.
 
In support of my assertion that Pelosi’s “pause” could buy time for new revelations, this just popped up on my AppleNews feed:

49259586281_c8ea2ec1e9_z.jpg


No telling what this may reveal, but can anyone say more evidence against the President prior to the Senate trial has NO value?
 
JoeMorgue said:
*Very slowly* But they only won a slight majority in the... part of Congress I'm almost at the point of declaring I don't know why we even bother having it.

2 Senators is more useful of a gain then 41 Representatives.

Don't play Moneyball with me and go "Okay they lost in every possible way we actually measure winning and losing but LOOK AT HOW THEIR METRICS WENT UP!"

When your team gets fewer runs, goals, and touchdowns then the other team YOU STILL LOST even if your RBI, Shots on Goals, and Forward Pass Completion percentages all went up more then the other teams.

Last night Carolina played Florida in hockey. We had twice the shots on goal. We won more faceoffs. We still lost because they put the puck in the back of the net more times then we did.

We lost. We didn't achieve some new, alternative form of winning.

I'm... so... very... ASTERISKS.... tired... of... the... Dems... winning... in... ways... that... aren't.... winning.

I'm tired of hearing about how much winning they are doing in the alternative universe where the system is fair.

I'm tired of the big win coming any day now.

I'm tired of "This thing we've done a billion times before and achieved nothing is going to work this time."
Click to expand...

Slight majority? 232 to 198. Surely ye jest. And have you seen the number of GOP House members that are not running for reelection? I'm as big a political junkie as you're going to find. I like the inroads the Democrats have been making nationwide. I think they are finally on the right track.
 
acbytesla said:
Slight majority? 232 to 198. Surely ye jest. And have you seen the number of GOP House members that are not running for reelection? I'm as big a political junkie as you're going to find. I like the inroads the Democrats have been making nationwide. I think they are finally on the right track.
Click to expand...

Okay. Let me know when all the "signs that we're going to win" lead to an actual win.
 
varwoche said:
I tend to agree with you that role of the Chief Justice is greatly limited, though not with your degree of confidence.
Click to expand...
Supporting my ambiguous stance, Rehnquist upheld an objection. So much for his powers being identical to the VP.

And his personal correspondence indicates he might have ruled on other things under certain circumstances.

Rehnquist said:
But assuming that I have such authority, I would want to use it only ... (when) clearly warranted
Click to expand...
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay. Let me know when all the "signs that we're going to win" lead to an actual win.
Click to expand...

The problem Joe is the election is not today. Everything can change in 10 months. Although Trump is unlikely to change. If the economy is going great guns Trump has a chance to save himself. If it starts to decline even a little I'm convinced Trump is toast.
 
acbytesla said:
The problem Joe is the election is not today. Everything can change in 10 months. Although Trump is unlikely to change. If the economy is going great guns Trump has a chance to save himself. If it starts to decline even a little I'm convinced Trump is toast.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. It's never going to be "today" it's always going to be some constantly being pushed forward "today" in the future.

The revisionist narrative that I haven't been right here, being told to just "be patient" and that the "next thing" is going to be the thing that makes a difference got old right about the time it was the Mueller Report. And then the impeachment. And now it's either his elections or his tax returns.

What happens in 2020 when Trump wins the election? You'll just move on to the next "next thing" and pretend like 2020 was never the goal.

Don't like hearing it? Like I said let me know when it changes and Trump suffers some actual meaningful defeat that changes anything about the landscape.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
But this was known before the impeachment began. And the time for gathering evidence for a conviction before the Articles are sent is during the impeachment process.
Click to expand...

True.

In general, I think withholding the articles for any reason is very strange, but we're in very strange territory already. I'm just trying to make sense out of the goings on in Washington, and failing. I can sort of wrap my head around the idea of holding onto them while saying there's no point. I just can't make any sense at all out of holding onto them as some sort of "leverage".
 
Meadmaker said:
True.

In general, I think withholding the articles for any reason is very strange, but we're in very strange territory already. I'm just trying to make sense out of the goings on in Washington, and failing. I can sort of wrap my head around the idea of holding onto them while saying there's no point. I just can't make any sense at all out of holding onto them as some sort of "leverage".
Click to expand...

I liken it to holding a bomb that if you throw now will be dealt with easily. The conditions are not right to toss it. They may never be. Still, the other side knows you have it and will always have to be prepared to deal with it.
 
acbytesla said:
I liken it to holding a bomb that if you throw now will be dealt with easily. The conditions are not right to toss it. They may never be. Still, the other side knows you have it and will always have to be prepared to deal with it.
Click to expand...

That doesn't exactly mesh with the "We have to impeach Trump even though it's counter-productive because it is our... *pause for dramatic effect* MORAL IMPERATIVE!" argument.

So they had to impeach Trump RIGHT NOW instead of waiting until they had... literally any actual political leverage or power and weren't just wasting their time but now that they've actually crossed the Rubicon of impeaching him... now they have to think all tactically and "wait for the right moment?"
 
Fast Eddie B said:
In support of my assertion that Pelosi’s “pause” could buy time for new revelations, this just popped up on my AppleNews feed:

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49259586281_c8ea2ec1e9_z.jpg[/qimg]

No telling what this may reveal, but can anyone say more evidence against the President prior to the Senate trial has NO value?
Click to expand...

Yes. The House Dems said exactly that two when they voted to end the impeachment inquiry and bring articles of impeachment two weeks ago.

You can try to spin this as a clever ploy, but it kinda looks like the Dems are only now thinking through something they obviously should have thought through before bringing impeachment to a floor vote.
 
varwoche said:
Supporting my ambiguous stance, Rehnquist upheld an objection. So much for his powers being identical to the VP.
Click to expand...
My argument is that the powers of the President of the Senate are identical to the powers of the President of the Senate, regardless of whether it's the Vice President or the Chief Justice that's presiding. And that ruling on objections during an impeachment trial is one of the powers of the President of the Senate.
 
JoeMorgue said:
That doesn't exactly mesh with the "We have to impeach Trump even though it's counter-productive because it is our... *pause for dramatic effect* MORAL IMPERATIVE!" argument.

So they had to impeach Trump RIGHT NOW instead of waiting until they had... literally any actual political leverage or power and weren't just wasting their time but now that they've actually crossed the Rubicon of impeaching him... now they have to think all tactically and "wait for the right moment?"
Click to expand...

They already impeached Trump. They did their job. But the GOP has said, "we don't care".

There is no sense in sending them until they do. The GOP can't say they exonerated Trump.

In the meantime the Democrats keep investigating and keep releasing new evidence to the public. The story hangs on.
 
theprestige said:
My argument is that the powers of the President of the Senate are identical to the powers of the President of the Senate, regardless of whether it's the Vice President or the Chief Justice that's presiding. And that ruling on objections during an impeachment trial is one of the powers of the President of the Senate.
Click to expand...
Are these powers specifically enumerated somewhere?
 
acbytesla said:
They already impeached Trump. They did their job. But the GOP has said, "we don't care".

There is no sense in sending them until they do. The GOP can't say they exonerated Trump.
Click to expand...

So it was vitally important that they impeach Trump even though it wasn't going to matter but vitally important that they don't dot that last i in the impeachment of Trump because.... it's not going to matter.

"It's not going to matter" seems to mean "just do stuff at random."

And the GOP can and will still say they exonerated Trump. They can sell their base on the winning over the Dems "dirty lawyer trick" just fine.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
In support of my assertion that Pelosi’s “pause” could buy time for new revelations, this just popped up on my AppleNews feed:

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49259586281_c8ea2ec1e9_z.jpg[/qimg]

No telling what this may reveal, but can anyone say more evidence against the President prior to the Senate trial has NO value?
Click to expand...

I posted a tweet which contained the documents upthread. No big revelations, just that the first memo calling for the aid to be withheld happened within 2 hours of the end of the phone call, and there was a second memo saying the same thing sent 2 hours later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom