• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Darat said:
Why do the press and the like need any access, to they can just read the POTUS official tweets.
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of BBC's Sherlock where Mycroft is wondering whether or not to assign government surveillance on Irene Adler to keep track of her and Sherlock just deadpans "Why bother? You can just follow her on Twitter. "
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Please make your case for less transparency.

Or was that sarcasm? :boggled:
Click to expand...

It was not sarcasm.

There was still press coverage in those days. You could still hear every word that was uttered, just not in the senator's voice. You could still know exactly how every senator or congressman voted on every vote. However, as soon as the cameras were turned on, it became a show. It became all about playing for the cameras. The Senate ceased to be any pretense of a deliberative body, and became a campaign commercial.
 
Meadmaker said:
It was not sarcasm.

There was still press coverage in those days. You could still hear every word that was uttered, just not in the senator's voice. You could still know exactly how every senator or congressman voted on every vote. However, as soon as the cameras were turned on, it became a show. It became all about playing for the cameras. The Senate ceased to be any pretense of a deliberative body, and became a campaign commercial.
Click to expand...

As “The People’s House”, I find it hard to fathom why “The People” should not have ready access to its machinations - for better or worse - allowing for security concerns, of course.
 
The point of a press-blackout at a trial is to avoid influencing the jury.
This restriction of media coverage is only meant to restrict information release to the public - information that is of vital importance to the voters.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
As “The People’s House”, I find it hard to fathom why “The People” should not have ready access to its machinations - for better or worse - allowing for security concerns, of course.
Click to expand...

That would make a great sound bite.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
The point of a press-blackout at a trial is to avoid influencing the jury.
This restriction of media coverage is only meant to restrict information release to the public - information that is of vital importance to the voters.
Click to expand...

Not this trial of course, (the bold part) and it isn't a 'blackout'. See my post above.

You got the rest right.
 
Last edited:
Within the long list of Republican outrages with respect to impeachment, I include Nunes behavior near the very, very top. It is evil enough to attempt to defend the morally and legally indefensible. It is bad enough to savagely lie and cynically manipulate the facts. It is treasonous enough to abandon one's country to gain personal advantage. It is immoral enough to try to disrupt the Constitutional efforts to discover crimes by the President and his aides. But to do all four while having been personally involved in actual the crimes and misdemeanors...
 
Last edited:
Oh, good lord. Trump's legal team is going with the the Dems are picking on poor Pres. Trump ,the impeachment is illegal because it doesn't claim a crime was committed and that the Dems are trying to overturn the election.
Trump's legal team, led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow, is challenging the impeachment on both procedural and constitutional grounds, claiming Trump has been mistreated by House Democrats and that he did nothing wrong.

Trump's attorneys argue that the articles of impeachment are unconstitutional in and of themselves and invalid because they don't allege a crime. Trump was impeached by the House on one count each of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Under the Constitution impeachment is a political, not a criminal process, and the president can be removed from office is found guilty of whatever lawmakers consider “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Click to expand...
“This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and
interfere with the 2020 election
Click to expand...
, now just months away," the filing states.
Click to expand...
(AP)

Anybody else find the highlighted claim even more ironic than usual considering that's what Trump was asking Zelensky to do?
 
Stacyhs said:
Oh, good lord. Trump's legal team is going with the the Dems are picking on poor Pres. Trump ,the impeachment is illegal because it doesn't claim a crime was committed and that the Dems are trying to overturn the election.


(AP)

Anybody else find the highlighted claim even more ironic than usual considering that's what Trump was asking Zelensky to do?
Click to expand...


I've yet to hear them explain how promoting the Vice President chosen in the 2016 election is overturning the 2016 election. They sound like the people who thought that proving President Obama wasn't really a citizen would have made McCain President.
 
Stacyhs said:
Oh, good lord. Trump's legal team is going with the the Dems are picking on poor Pres. Trump ,the impeachment is illegal because it doesn't claim a crime was committed and that the Dems are trying to overturn the election.


(AP)

Anybody else find the highlighted claim even more ironic than usual considering that's what Trump was asking Zelensky to do?
Click to expand...

You didn't link to the story, so I have to ask.

Did they actually file suit somewhere to get the articles of impeachment thrown out?

Sometimes I would like to be a fly on the wall where some of these decisions are made. Are they that stupid to think that it could actually happen? Or do they assume that the people seeing it on the news are that stupid that they can score political points by getting it on the news?

This isn't the first time I've wondered what the politicians involved in this are actually thinking. Did the Dems actually think he might be convicted? Did Nancy Pelosi actually think that if she never sent the articles, the Senate could never start the trial?

I have assumed this is all political posturing, but maybe there are idiots on both sides of the aisle that actually believe the bizarre things they are making.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom