Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I Am The Scum said:
I'm not trying to be negative. I honestly think you're one of the cooler posters on this forum. But it's abundantly clear that there's nothing that will make you happy until election day.
Click to expand...

The problem is not that he can't be happy; it's that there are no signs that the Democrats are winning, despite the best efforts of some posters here to convince us that there is, hiding somewhere.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Did Democratic voters care that Clinton had been given the "Stain of being impeached and it can never be washed out!" ...

Again I'll factor in the invisible silent voters who somehow exist without leaving any trace on the political discourse when they show up, not before.

You can put your faith in some Deus Ex Machina "Skeleton Army from Return of the King" showing up at the last minute to save us all, I don't.
Click to expand...
Goal post changes noted.
 
JoeMorgue said:
DID... THE... VOTERS... CARE?

If Bill Clinton could have run for a 3rd term in... what 2000 I guess it would have been... would he have been re-elected even though he had been given the unbearable stain of being impeached that nobody could have erased that you've been holding onto like a mantra for the last few pages?.....
Click to expand...
Third term aside, this is so not even closely comparable.
 
:thumbsup:
Mike! said:
So the Germans DID bomb Pearl Harbor?
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

Great call. I just love Meadmaker chiming in.

I totally disagree with Joe on this. I don't disrespect Joe. But I think there are daily events that make news, but have little effect on elections. Or at least determining their effect is impossible.

Consider this. Hillary led Trump in the polls from day one right up until the election. She even was leading in those swing states that went to Trump in the end.

Does anyone actually believe the nuances of the impeachment process matters to voters that their votes rest on it? Especially when it happened 8 months before they voted?
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
The problem is not that he can't be happy; it's that there are no signs that the Democrats are winning, despite the best efforts of some posters here to convince us that there is, hiding somewhere.
Click to expand...

Depends on what "winning" means. Nobody realistically expects Trump to get hauled off in handcuffs. However, this will undoubtedly have an effect on congressional elections, and recent polls are pretty pro-impeachment. Representatives who voted in favor of impeachment get higher approval than those who voted against. Anyone saying this is hurting Democrats is engaging in baseless speculation.
 
Having read a few hundred posts analysing this in detail, there seems to be an elephant in the room overlooked: Trump is a loose cannon and a loudmouth idjit.

The Dems know this and are playing to both aspects in delaying sending the articles. It pokes Trump where he hurts the most, in public polls and personal pride. And it is provoking him to make things worse, which he is very likely to do. And if he is not careful he will commit more impeachable offences. The Dems are simply giving him rope to hang himself with, and Mitch is trying to make sure (by prayer??) that he doesn't.

And by the looks of the escalating-pain tweets that Trump is blurting out over the last few days, they are hitting that nerve and getting that result. And by not responding to him, not clapping back, Trump is not getting the satisfaction of landing any effective punches. Which is even more galling because the sniffling brat is being ignored.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Depends on what "winning" means. Nobody realistically expects Trump to get hauled off in handcuffs. However, this will undoubtedly have an effect on congressional elections, and recent polls are pretty pro-impeachment. Representatives who voted in favor of impeachment get higher approval than those who voted against. Anyone saying this is hurting Democrats is engaging in baseless speculation.
Click to expand...

A lot of people have trouble seeing from other perspectives, especially perspectives that lack their amount of knowledge.

Or engaged in political narrative building.

There has been this undercurrent (and sometimes overtly stated) attitude that if one attacks the Dems, it defends Trump. It's the same reasoning as blaming the police for not yet catching a serial killer, complete with accusations of doing both too much (going too far) and not doing nearly enough, often from the same person. 'The Dems aren't stopping Trump' sidesteps the fact 'Trump is openly and secretly breaking black letter law constantly (along with a ton of other evil)'.

I don't hold it against people when they don't do things that are NOT within their power, but I can be critical of people when they don't do things that ARE within their power, even if it's a low percentage play.

Thus I don't hold the Dems not being able to convince the GOP to convict in the Senate against the dems. Failure to do that is on the GOP. I am also not critical of the Dems leveraging the little power they do have to hold the articles until they get some concessions on a trial being more fair (and thus applying a political cost for the GOP's malpractice) or it becomes even more clear that Mitch and the wannabe oligarchs are intentionally failing their duty (and thus applying a political cost for the GOP's malpractice).

Of course for others, they focus on what they can influence. As they've written off the GOP being reasonable in the least, they focus on pulling the Dems in the direction they want. Being the 'bigger' side has that drawback, much as the US being an open society has the drawback of being attackable through our freedoms where that same attack doesn't work on say, Russia, where it does not matter as much what the people think and they have a lot of state control. (The GOP wanting such control helps our enemies of course.)

EDIT: Missed some words
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Did you miss where every human being with a brain stem already knew he was going to do that?

That's the big "gotcha?"

"OH MY GOD OUR CAREFULLY LAID OUT PLAN TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE REPUBLICAN LEAD CONGRESS NOT MAKING IT EASY FOR US! WHO COULD HAVE FORESEEN THIS!?"
Click to expand...

Everyone knows that Mitch is going to rig it, but he didn't even try to pretend to be hold a fair trial. What was Nancy supposed to do? I think her strategy is the best for the cards she holding. Mitch made a tactical error when he stated the obvious. Many Americans have the delusion that the Republicans are playing fair, or are acting in good faith. She's pointing out that Mitch, himself, is announcing to the world that they are not.
 
Random said:
Pretty much what we have right now. Clear, convincing evidence of the President committing impeachable offences is produced by the Democrats, and the Republicans say, "Not only do we not care, we are going to invent a ridiculous and convoluted conspiracy theory that shows that Hillary Clinton was behind the plot to rob Hillary Clinton of the Presidency! Take that, Liberal scum!"
Click to expand...

I have yet to hear a reason what the Republicans are saying the motivation of Democrats were of hacking their own servers. An insurance claim, maybe? It makes no sense at all. Then again, it doesn't have to for the rest of the Right to believe it.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Stop doing things to Trump assuming he's going to react like someone who has a conscious, soul, ounce of shame, or sliver of self reflection.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the assumption. More that he is going to pitch ever-escalating tantrums. Or maybe burst a blood vessel. Or both. Not that I wish him physical harm. But mental anguish, I'm totally on board for that. Tipping points happen. You act like that's impossible. Mass hysteria peaks. Think of the Red Scare.

Mitch McConnell formalized the situation that was already pretty clear: Proceedings in the House are literally the only way to get any sworn testimony on the record. Under those stated conditions, the House would be remiss, IMO, if they didn't pursue additional sworn testimony. Trump could arrange that in about 10 seconds.

To those saying there's no crime, that's kind of the point. Trump is in effect immune from criminal prosecution. But the House could choose to add another Article for which a boatload of evidence is already in hand - obstruction of justice. Robert Mueller made it clear that he wouldn't charge Trump criminally. But he drew some big red arrows pointing to a possible political remedy.

Some posters here think Pelosi shot herself in the foot. In that case Trump should be dancing a jig. But he's not. Go figure.
 
If this is not already in this thread... Trump is already on thin ice. So perhaps he has been told VERY firmly by his minders to SHUT HIS PIE HOLE OVER CHRISTMAS WHILE THEY CLEAN THINGS UP AND STOP MAKING EVEN MORE OF A MESS! Of course, that doesn't stop him tweeting... ;)

In a court filing Monday, lawyers for the [House Judiciary] committee said McGahn’s testimony remains essential even though the House has already voted to impeach Trump on two charges related to his interactions with Ukraine rather than on actions uncovered during Mueller’s Russia probe.

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” lawyers for the Democratic-led committee wrote.
Click to expand...
https://apnews.com/867403d69b0135e020b7d5a1963f2033
 
thaiboxerken said:
Everyone knows that Mitch is going to rig it, but he didn't even try to pretend to be hold a fair trial. What was Nancy supposed to do? I think her strategy is the best for the cards she holding.
Click to expand...
I think "what was Nancy supposed to do" is a great question. Why should she endorse a complete whitewash, when she has other options?
 
Minoosh said:
I think "what was Nancy supposed to do" is a great question. Why should she endorse a complete whitewash, when she has other options?
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think it's pretty egotistical to think that anyone here has the chops that Pelosi does. Me, I would have called on McConnell to resign or be removed from office. After all, he's announced that he will break his own oath, right? So how can he be trusted to uphold his oath of office?

(Of course, it's been obvious that he's a complete scumbag the entire time, so...)

But if there's one thing I've learned over the past...15 years, it's that Pelosi got to where she was by being an absolute master in the House at getting what she wants (even if "what she wants" and "what I want" are wildly different) via process, rules, and the like. As much as so-called liberals and progressives scream at her, it's really Chuck Schumer that collapses into a heap as soon as his opponent makes a threat. I may well enjoy watching her play this - or possibly not, after Dolt 45 forced her hand by making it obvious that he should be removed from office.
 
acbytesla said:
But McConnell made it clear. He doesn't want a documentary, but a fairy tale that says the opposite of the facts.
Click to expand...

Again,. who was this a surprise to? The term "alternative facts" was coined by the Republicans three years ago. Is the claim really that the Democrats have only started paying attention since the Articles were voted on?
 
Mumbles said:
Frankly, I think it's pretty egotistical to think that anyone here has the chops that Pelosi does. Me, I would have called on McConnell to resign or be removed from office. After all, he's announced that he will break his own oath, right? So how can he be trusted to uphold his oath of office?

(Of course, it's been obvious that he's a complete scumbag the entire time, so...)

But if there's one thing I've learned over the past...15 years, it's that Pelosi got to where she was by being an absolute master in the House at getting what she wants (even if "what she wants" and "what I want" are wildly different) via process, rules, and the like. As much as so-called liberals and progressives scream at her, it's really Chuck Schumer that collapses into a heap as soon as his opponent makes a threat. I may well enjoy watching her play this - or possibly not, after Dolt 45 forced her hand by making it obvious that he should be removed from office.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Pelosi has been unfairly demonized by both sides. And unlike others who have received this treatment (cough, Hillary) she's done nothing sketchy/corrupt to earn it. Her "sins" consist of representing San Francisco, being highly effective, being practical, and being old.
 
Mumbles said:
But if there's one thing I've learned over the past...15 years, it's that Pelosi got to where she was by being an absolute master in the House at getting what she wants (even if "what she wants" and "what I want" are wildly different) via process, rules, and the like.
Click to expand...
When did she get the nickname Nancy Smash? I can imagine WHY but don't know when it was popularized.
:on
Her impromptu "I pray for the president" mini-speech was impressive. I absolutely believe her. Trump called her a liar. I'm not sure that's going to sit well with some portions of his Christian base, the kind who have
their own private prayer routines. Not the show-off, virtue-signaling kind frim of la
Ncan say it At wChristians a act do have their own private TricksTricks minions (or Putin's bots) called it an unhinged rant. They also criticized her for looking her age and having a tremor. Now that he's president, I doubt if Trump's stupid enough to amplify such remarks in his tweetsm and retweets, but you never know.

I'll get back to the topic but one more thing:
 
Minoosh said:
To those saying there's no crime, that's kind of the point. Trump is in effect immune from criminal prosecution. But the House could choose to add another Article for which a boatload of evidence is already in hand - obstruction of justice. Robert Mueller made it clear that he wouldn't charge Trump criminally. But he drew some big red arrows pointing to a possible political remedy.
Click to expand...

So why didn't they? Why vote on the Articles, and then delay in order to bring a new one that they chose not to bring initially?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom