Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's no secret that Democrats hate Trump. But impeachment talk only started because it was obvious that he cheated to get elected, and then went on a presidential crime spree. Democrats didn't like Bush either, but Bush did way less crimes and didn't brag about doing them.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's no secret that Democrats hate Trump. But impeachment talk only started because it was obvious that he cheated to get elected, and then went on a presidential crime spree. Democrats didn't like Bush either, but Bush did way less crimes and didn't brag about doing them.
Click to expand...

Multiple counts of torture.
 
Trump Tweets

Everything we’re seeing from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer suggests that they’re in real doubt about the evidence they’ve brought forth so far not being good enough, and are very, very urgently seeking a way to find some more evidence. The only way to make this work is to..

....mount some kind of public pressure to demand witnesses, but McConnell has the votes and he can run this trial anyway he wants to. @brithume @foxandfriends
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I think that logic is suspicious.

If I’m understanding you correctly, Clinton was not really impeached for the actions put forth in his Articles of Impeachment, but for other motives.

Sounds like something taken from the current Republican playbook: Trump was not really impeached for the actions put forth in his Articles of Impeachment, but for other motives - i.e. they hate him, they’re afraid of losing in 2020, etc.

But a pox on whoever first mentioned Bill Clinton in this thread. Though I’m too lazy to look it up.
Click to expand...
The Clinton impeachment does form a sort of precedent for this one. Perhaps they should follow the same model: allow three witnesses, but record the depositions so they don't have to face questions.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Everything we’re seeing from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer suggests that they’re in real doubt about the evidence they’ve brought forth so far not being good enough, and are very, very urgently seeking a way to find some more evidence. The only way to make this work is to..

....mount some kind of public pressure to demand witnesses, but McConnell has the votes and he can run this trial anyway he wants to. @brithume @foxandfriends
Click to expand...

"Pelosi's winning this one."
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Skeptic Ginger said:
How is it a political or social norm to pressure a foreign government to interfere in a US election?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


SG's post needs some corrections.

Skeptic Ginger said:
How is it a political or social norm for a President to pressure a foreign government to interfere for him in a his US election?
Click to expand...

Hey, Washington invited the French to intervene - it's pretty much the same, isn't it?
Click to expand...


No. That's not pretty much the same.

It wasn't the same anyway, but I thought clarifications were in order.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump tweeted

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that Republicans in the Senate should handle the Impeachment Hoax in the exact same manner as Democrats in the House handled their recent partisan scam? Why would it be different for Republicans than it was for the Radical Left Democrats?
Click to expand...


Does this mean he thinks there should be witnesses?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Everything we’re seeing from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer suggests that they’re in real doubt about the evidence they’ve brought forth so far not being good enough, and are very, very urgently seeking a way to find some more evidence. The only way to make this work is to..

....mount some kind of public pressure to demand witnesses, but McConnell has the votes and he can run this trial anyway he wants to. @brithume @foxandfriends
Click to expand...

The big problem seems to be when should Democrats turn off the spigot marked "Incriminating Evidence". Something juicy and damaging to the president pops up every other day or so, but as soon as they hand it over to the Senate, Moscow Mitch will scream, "All Hail Dear Leader!", ritually castrate himself, and Trump will declare that he has been totally exonerated or any and all crimes he has committed, is committing now, and will commit in the future, and any and all evidence of his guilt that leaks out after the fact is just "sour grapes" or something.

As long as evidence of Trumps treason keeps leaking out, it doesn't make any sense to hand it over to the Senate, but the evidence isn't really gonna stop...
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Hunter Biden is allegedly the subject of multiple criminal investigations according to legal filing claims in Arkansas, just in case fake news forgets to mention it:

https://nypost.com/2019/12/23/hunter-bidens-baby-mama-says-hes-linked-to-multiple-criminal-probes/
Click to expand...
Based on how much this weighty news titillated you, you should be utterly delighted to hear that George Soros is behind it all! At least according to Rudy.

Rudy said:
He [Soros] put all four ambassadors there [Ukraine]. And he’s employing the F.B.I. agents.
Click to expand...

Soros is so clever that he managed to maneuver Trump into appointing some of these ambassadors. Impressive!

If you think there might be an anti-semitic aspect, worry not...

Rudy said:
Soros is hardly a Jew. I’m more of a Jew than Soros is.
Click to expand...


My favorite part:
he [Rudy] wore a navy-blue suit, the fly of the pants unzipped
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Well I'm a Democrat and I don't believe that. Who are these Democrats you speak of and why do you think they are buying the narrative McConnell and Trump are selling? It's ludicrous, IMO, that Pelosi isn't playing fair by demanding a trial in the Senate, not just a dismissal.

The polls don't suggest Democrats want Pelosi to roll over.
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting post. It illustrates one of the ways that Democrats so completely miss the point.

Is the speaker asking for something "fair"? Sort of. I guess. But, who cares?

The point is she has no power. She looks foolish making demands from a position of weakness.

As for the polls, it is so easy to misread them, and Democrats have done so over and over. Are the people demanding a trial, with witnesses and all that? I don't see it. I know you won't get the answer from a poll, though.
 
Last edited:
When things are confusing, I fall back on my background as a software nerd...

Is the impeachment proceeding the equivalent of a virtual machine? It operates within the larger system, but in isolation. There's no such thing as violating the constitution within the virtual machine. Or more like, if there is an egregious violation, it's up to GOP senators to resolve it.

If there have not been constitutional challenges in the prior two senate trials, this is uncharted water.
 
Meadmaker said:
... As for the polls, it is so easy to misread them, and Democrats have done so over and over. Are the people demanding a trial, with witnesses and all that? I don't see it. I know you won't get the answer from a poll, though.
Click to expand...
Especially in this instance. Some of those cultists astute GOP voters may be reading out of the wrong playbook, having heard Trump demand witnesses.
 
Meadmaker said:
This is a very interesting post. It illustrates one of the ways that Democrats so completely miss the point.

Is the speaker asking for something "fair"? Sort of. I guess. But, who cares?

The point is she has no power. She looks foolish making demands from a position of weakness.

As for the polls, it is so easy to misread them, and Democrats have done so over and over. Are the people demanding a trial, with witnesses and all that? I don't see it. I know you won't get the answer from a poll, though.
Click to expand...

Ordinarily you would be right. But nothing about this is ordinary. Hell nothing is ordinary when it involves Trump.

Pelosi does have power. You're missing the point if you think she doesn't. She can keep the sword of impeachment hanging over Trump's head. That can not be ignored.

Trump wants it to end, Republicans want it to end. But it can't end if the articles are not sent. It stays in the news cycle. Hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month. Like Hillary's emails it's a story without an end.
 
acbytesla said:
Pelosi does have power. You're missing the point if you think she doesn't. She can keep the sword of impeachment hanging over Trump's head. That can not be ignored.

Trump wants it to end, Republicans want it to end. But it can't end if the articles are not sent. It stays in the news cycle. Hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month. Like Hillary's emails it's a story without an end.
Click to expand...


If that is the point, then you are right. I'm missing it.

I don't think they want it to end. I know they did a week ago, but I think that's because they never imagined another alternative. I think it's fair to say that no one saw this coming. i.e. no one even really considered the possibility that the House would vote to impeach, but then refuse to schedule a trial.

I guess we'll see if she's right. If it works out for her and the Dems, then she's a genius.
 
Speaking as someone who is watching this fiasco from afar, I think I do understand why those who have determined that the President has a case to answer would refuse to let that case be presented to a jury which they know for certain will acquit, regardless of the evidence. If the only alternative to letting an open and shut case be summarily dismissed by a corrupt court is to sit on it, then sit on it. For ever, if necessary.
 
Pixel42 said:
Speaking as someone who is watching this fiasco from afar, I think I do understand why those who have determined that the President has a case to answer would refuse to let that case be presented to a jury which they know for certain will acquit, regardless of the evidence. If the only alternative to letting an open and shut case be summarily dismissed by a corrupt court is to sit on it, then sit on it. For ever, if necessary.
Click to expand...

When I first heard about the strategy, that was my thought as well, and I thought it was interesting, and might work.

What transpired instead was that Pelosi started saying that she would take the case to trial, but only if they did it the way she wanted. That's what I think makes her look foolish.

I suppose it's so hard to say because analysis like mine above is the sort of thing that only a political junkie would follow, and most political junkies aren't swing voters. I suppose I have to admit I don't know how someone who is only dimly aware that the impeachment is even happening is taking this.


For what it's worth, for you folks not in the USA, I would say that no one is talking about it. We used to talk about the "water cooler talk", i.e. the idle chat and occasional remarks by people in casual conversation, and there's almost none of it. Yes, it's on the news, but people don't pay attention to the news unless they are political junkies, and most of those watch "their" news (i.e Fox for the conservatives, WaPo and NYT for liberals. CNN for....someone, I guess. I think their ratings decline continues. I know I would no more watch CNN than Fox.)

All of this indifference or avoidance makes it hard to figure out what people are really thinking.
 
Howard Baker, GOP Senator, 1973:
What did the president know, and when did he know it?​

Lindsey Graham, GOP Senator, 2019:
I am clearly made up my mind ... I don't need any witnesses.​


Just want y'all to know that whirring sound isn't Santa's sled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom