Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's vastly important to stand for what is right. At least it is to some.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Hands up, don't shoot!!! The Mueller Report said no one in the U.S. colluded with Russia to fix the election and that included Trump.
.....
Click to expand...


"Collusion" is a distraction. The indisputable fact is that Russia wanted Trump to be President and acted aggressively to accomplish that goal, and Trump has overturned decades of U.S. foreign policy principles -- and core Republican principles -- to protect and promote Russian interests. They didn't have to "collude" overtly; they each saw the other as useful for their own reasons.
 
acbytesla said:
It's vastly important to stand for what is right. At least it is to some.
Click to expand...

Now the House Dems just need to figure out what is right, and whether they stand for it.

Two weeks ago, "right" seemed to be putting the President on trial for his high crimes and misdemeanors. Today, "right" appears to be not putting the President on trial, and instead farming the impeachment process for as much partisan political advantage as possible.

Except that the impeachment process ended when the Articles went to a floor vote. So apparently the "right" thing to do was to have an impeachment, and then stop there. For partisan political advantage in the upcoming elections.
 
I doubt it will happen, but I wonder what would happen if the Republicans tried to force a trial.

Here's what I'm getting at. Right now, we're in a strange situation because the House has voted to impeach, but the Speaker of the House has said that the trial won't start yet, and indeed, might possibly never start. If you apply just a little bit of thought to this, you would see this is clearly not within her powers. Consider, if you will, a hypothetical case where there is an impeachment issue that does not split cleanly along party lines. The House votes to impeach, but the Speaker isn't part of that majority vote. Could she then have, effectively, a veto power over the impeachment process? Clearly not.

This whole process of "delivering the articles" and "house managers" is tradition and regulation set up to facilitate the process, but it isn't in the Constitution.

But how would the impasse be broken? I would suppose that one or more House members would have to sue, and the Supreme Court would dictate that the trial begin, because that's what the Constitution requires.

And, again, it won't happen, but I suspect that the Senate has the constitutional authority to just start trying the President. Sure, the Senate didn't actually "receive the articles of impeachment", but they know what they are. They're on the internet. Many of us watched them vote on them.

In this case, it seems unlikely that anyone would demand that the impasse be broken, so we'll just wait to see what happens, but it is a very weird situation.
 
Bob001 said:
"Collusion" is a distraction. The indisputable fact is that Russia wanted Trump to be President and acted aggressively to accomplish that goal, and Trump has overturned decades of U.S. foreign policy principles -- and core Republican principles -- to protect and promote Russian interests. They didn't have to "collude" overtly; they each saw the other as useful for their own reasons.
Click to expand...

So, how many votes in the U.S did Russia change in the U.S. with their aggressive actions? I need a number and a source, or it's simply as nonsensical as it sounds.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
So, how many votes in the U.S did Russia change in the U.S. with their aggressive actions? I need a number and a source, or it's simply as nonsensical as it sounds.
Click to expand...

How would that impact the conspiracy Trump and his campaign engaged in with Russian Intelligence Services?
 
Belz... said:
<snip>

And his followers do the same thing: they say outrageous things just to get a rise out of people because don't think they nomally should do it. They don't believe in what they post or say. It's just a game.
Click to expand...


Yeah. No.

I'm not buying that excuse. People who say outrageous things just to get a rise usually don't say things all that distant from what they really believe. They're just more outrageous about the way they say it.

The ones who are saying offensively outrageous things are saying them because it's not that far from what they really believe, and they're just taking advantage of the "Oh. I'm just joking." duck-and cover.

Just like people who don't contemplate using the "N" word won't suddenly start spouting it off just to get a rise out of someone. It isn't in their natural vocabulary. The ones who do are the ones who think of it routinely, and manage to only let loose when they feel like they can get away with it.

I'm not inclined to give those Trump supporters who spout off filthy garbage when they feel safe doing it the same benefit of the doubt that you seem to be. They haven't shown any cause for me to think they deserve it.

They are letting their true opinions show for a change, not making up new ones.
 
Meadmaker said:
I doubt it will happen, but I wonder what would happen if the Republicans tried to force a trial.

Here's what I'm getting at. Right now, we're in a strange situation because the House has voted to impeach, but the Speaker of the House has said that the trial won't start yet, and indeed, might possibly never start. If you apply just a little bit of thought to this, you would see this is clearly not within her powers. Consider, if you will, a hypothetical case where there is an impeachment issue that does not split cleanly along party lines. The House votes to impeach, but the Speaker isn't part of that majority vote. Could she then have, effectively, a veto power over the impeachment process? Clearly not.

This whole process of "delivering the articles" and "house managers" is tradition and regulation set up to facilitate the process, but it isn't in the Constitution.

But how would the impasse be broken? I would suppose that one or more House members would have to sue, and the Supreme Court would dictate that the trial begin, because that's what the Constitution requires.

And, again, it won't happen, but I suspect that the Senate has the constitutional authority to just start trying the President. Sure, the Senate didn't actually "receive the articles of impeachment", but they know what they are. They're on the internet. Many of us watched them vote on them.

In this case, it seems unlikely that anyone would demand that the impasse be broken, so we'll just wait to see what happens, but it is a very weird situation.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting question. The Articles of Impeachment are a matter of public record, and are in fact documented acts of government. I wouldn't be surprised if act of voting them into existence gives the Senate everything necessary to conduct a trial based on those Articles.

It would be kind of tragicomic of the Senate voted to begin the trial tomorrow, and voted to acquit before Pelosi could get together a prosecution.
 
Meadmaker said:
The whole idea of "exculpatory" in this case doesn't even apply.

The facts are known. Now make a decision. Is the conduct in question sufficiently reprehensible that President Trump ought to be removed from office without an election? That's the question. How would any additional information exculpate anyone? (Is that really a word? It has the right Latin segments, but I've never heard anyone actually use it as a word.)
Click to expand...


I recall this very same question being asked in some thread in the past.

And answered. The answer is yes, it really is a word. And has been for quite some time. Same word and same usage for several centuries, which ain't easy when it comes to English. A direct translation of the original Latin. Not just "Latin fragments".

It was even relatively common not all that long ago. Perhaps not as commonly used these days, but certainly not unheard of, or even particularly obscure.

Maybe you haven't run across it personally, but the simple way to check is to look it up.

I'm guessing you have already made your decision. Did you do so impartially? But if you were listening to the trial, having already made the decision about guilt, would you still be impartial?

The word has no meaning in this context.
Click to expand...


How do you figure? It is perfectly possible (however unlikely) that some additional testimony could be found which might contradict evidence in favor of Trump's guilt.

That would be "exculpatory" evidence. (I.e., "to exculpate".)
 
quadraginta said:
Yeah. No.

I'm not buying that excuse. People who say outrageous things just to get a rise usually don't say things all that distant from what they really believe. They're just more outrageous about the way they say it.

The ones who are saying offensively outrageous things are saying them because it's not that far from what they really believe, and they're just taking advantage of the "Oh. I'm just joking." duck-and cover.

Just like people who don't contemplate using the "N" word won't suddenly start spouting it off just to get a rise out of someone. It isn't in their natural vocabulary. The ones who do are the ones who think of it routinely, and manage to only let loose when they feel like they can get away with it.

I'm not inclined to give those Trump supporters who spout off filthy garbage when they feel safe doing it the same benefit of the doubt that you seem to be. They haven't shown any cause for me to think they deserve it.

They are letting their true opinions show for a change, not making up new ones.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
I've figured out a way to solve the question of whether or not Donald Trump has actually been impeached.

Over in London, bookies bet on everything. I am confident they have been betting on "Donald Trump will be impeached before the end of 2019". Have they been paying off those bets?
 
Meadmaker said:
I've figured out a way to solve the question of whether or not Donald Trump has actually been impeached.

Over in London, bookies bet on everything. I am confident they have been betting on "Donald Trump will be impeached before the end of 2019". Have they been paying off those bets?
Click to expand...

Why does the end of Miracle on 34th Street suddenly come to mind? :thumbsup:;)
 
Trump Tweets

Crazy Nancy wants to dictate terms on the Impeachment Hoax to the Republican Majority Senate, but striped away all Due Process, no lawyers or witnesses, on the Democrat Majority House. The Dems just wish it would all end. Their case is dead, their poll numbers are horrendous!
 
BrooklynBaby said:
So, how many votes in the U.S did Russia change in the U.S. with their aggressive actions? I need a number and a source, or it's simply as nonsensical as it sounds.
Click to expand...


Now you're just being willfully blind. The only number you need is "enough to change the result."

A meticulous analysis of online activity during the 2016 campaign makes a powerful case that targeted cyberattacks by hackers and trolls were decisive.
Click to expand...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump

When Russia set out to interfere with the 2016 election, it went all out.
Over the course of the election, a wide-ranging group of Russians probed state voter databases for insecurities; hacked the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee; tried to hack the campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio and the Republican National Committee; released politically damaging information on the internet; spread propaganda on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram; staged rallies in Florida and Pennsylvania; set up meetings with members of the Trump campaign and its associates; and floated a business proposition for a skyscraper in Moscow to the Trump Organization.
Click to expand...
https://time.com/5565991/russia-influence-2016-election/

But the bombshell 37-page indictment issued Friday by Robert Mueller against Russia’s Internet Research Agency and its leadership and affiliates provides considerable detail on the Russian information warfare targeting the American public during the elections. And this information makes it increasingly difficult to say that the Kremlin's effort to impact the American mind did not succeed.
Click to expand...
https://www.wired.com/story/did-russia-affect-the-2016-election-its-now-undeniable/

Here's what you should be asking: Why did Putin want Trump in the White House?
 
Oh, they don't care about that election manpulation. They only care about that alleged and hypothetical and possible and nebulous election interference from the libs and brown people. You know, the one that helps the Democrats win.
 
theprestige said:
If you're a US citizen, there is no higher pay grade. Your authority and duty to judge the actions of your representatives, and vote accordingly, is not one you can defer to a greater expertise. There is no greater expertise.
Click to expand...


What I said was above my pay grade was Pelosi's plan, as in this:



theprestige said:
Essentially Pelosi is offering him his show trial "exoneration", in exchange for putting Bolton's testimony on the record.

With the caveat that even if he were to concede to every demand, she could still delay things and try to extract even more political advantage anyway.

Unless, as has been suggested, there is no deal, and Pelosi's plan is to extract as much political advantage from the process as possible, ahead of the election, without going to trial.

I think if that's the plan, it's likely to backfire.
Click to expand...
Pelosi is not my representative, so I don't get where you're going with it's within my pay grade to judge Pelosi's plan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom