Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

Meadmaker said:
This is absolutely the right thing to do. Just like the other side is doing. Turn public opinion against him and the Senate would convict. Right now, not a chance.
Click to expand...

Drip drip drip. There has to be a lot of folks who are starting to get tired of being told there is no elephant in the room, Trumpy's call was perfect.
 
Meadmaker said:
Scotus can rule quickly if they are so inclined.


If he defies a scotus order, public opinion will shift against him. Anything less won't be enough to move the needle. Better to wait for a conviction than rush through an acquittal.
Click to expand...

That's the claim. McGhan's subpoena wasn't moved through the courts quickly. In addition, even when the courts rule against Trump, he defies the order. That's what the obstruction case is all about.
 
theprestige said:
I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the Democrats' apparent dichotomy of "we have enough evidence to make a compelling case for removing the Presdident"/"we can't make a compelling case unless we are allowed to produce more evidence".
Click to expand...
Of course you would. :rolleyes:

The Dems didn't want to wait for the conclusion of the appeals process, and decided to move forward to trial without it. Now they're complaining that they can't move forward without it.
Click to expand...
Been addressed.

And it's stupid anyway. Even if the Senate issued subpoenas, the White House would still appeal them. The appeals process would still take a year or more. To me, this is a textbook Rumsfeldian scenario: You go to trial with the witnesses and evidence you have, not the witnesses and evidence you wish to have or plan to have at a later date.
Click to expand...
Trumpy would be defying his own GOP support.

But the Democrats are trying to have it both ways.
Click to expand...
No, they are not.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Fast-tracked?

A week or two?

Are you joking?

I think you just revealed how deeply uninformed you are about the matter.
Click to expand...

Considering that he or she insists that the Ukraine fiasco broke no laws, despite several posts quoting the federal statute that makes it criminal; and ignoring that the GAO announcing that withholding the aid was a crime, it is being willfully uninformed.
 
Segnosaur said:
Well, except for the whole "Russian interference" thing. And the whole "Minority voter" suppression thing. And the whole gerrymandering thing (admittedly a congressional thing, but it was still part of the elections).
Click to expand...

How about the part where Trump is literally an unindicted co-conspirator in crimes done to help his election chances in 2016?
 
Kenneth Starr making opening arguments right now. He is not talking about facts (as expected). Instead, the gist of it seems to be impeachment is bad unless it is bipartisan. His suggestion is oversight.

How can the House do oversight when the President blocks all requests for documents and testimony?
 
dmaker said:
Kenneth Starr making opening arguments right now. He is not talking about facts (as expected). Instead, the gist of it seems to be impeachment is bad unless it is bipartisan.
Click to expand...

That's the core of the argument. People who think Trump is guilty are biased and therefore don't count.

They've trapped themselves (and us partially) in a paradox where any negative information from Trump has to come from someone who doesn't think he's ever done anything wrong, but thinking Trump has done something wrong is a sign of bias. 20 GOTO 10.

It's a classic "It's your fault I'm unreasonable, if only you could do a better job of convincing me" argument.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
In terms of the "the White House must have leaked it" keep in mind what it means that SOMEONE in the White House spilled the beans about Bolton's manuscript. Even if they were a loyalist, if they are anything like Trump, they are not unwilling to blow their hole and spout off about things they shouldn't.

The White House has never run a tight ship, despite Trump's complaints.
Click to expand...
Maybe the same whistleblower who complained in the first place.

I still think Bolton's on the list for leaking his book contents. There are many reasons he wouldn't want the WH blocking the release of key parts of the book.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Correct. And Joe Biden has said that he wouldn't comply with a subpoena.

Can you link to any Republican saying that they would vote for a witness swap? I've not seen any politician endorse that on either side. The Democrats because they don't want to allow the trial to become about the Bidens, and the Republicans because they're terrified of what witnesses would say.
Click to expand...
This is one of those typical GOP moves. Say you want Biden to testify to make it look like the Democrats are hiding something. In reality, they know Biden has nothing to hide.
 
Meadmaker said:
The supreme Court can move faster. Back in the Nixon era there were plenty of actions executed. And bush v gore took about a week.


As for his hard core base, you're right. Most people who vote republican, including people who vote Trump, are not hard core base. A lot of them don't even like Trump. They are hard core anti Democrats.

It occurs to me that, politically, impeachment would have been easier to accomplish after the election, if necessary.
Click to expand...

This is all speculation.
 
Segnosaur said:
From: https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1221796478613585920
If there is a desire and decision by the Senate to call Democratic witnesses, then at a minimum the Senate should allow President @realDonaldTrump to call all relevant witnesses he has requested.

(And Donald Trump has suggested calling the Bidens, and the whistleblower).
Click to expand...
That's just precious. So House managers want "Democratic" witnesses ... like Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo or Barr? Yeah, Lindsey thinks these guys are Democrats :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
So to recap this morning (from the press conference), the GOP is sticking to 'it was just a phone call, no other evidence has been presented, Bolton is lying to sell his book, and we're still going to wrap this thing up as planned.

...Because after all, that was the plan all along, give as little attention to this as possible. The evidence didn't matter then, more of it won't matter now. I wonder who Trump is going to bomb to take the headlines away from Bolton's book?


... I can see Moscow Mitch's argument to his Senators: Look, no witness is going to change the outcome of the vote, so let's get this thing done.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I was under the impression that due to the prohibition on “prior restraint”, they can’t stop it regardless. If classified information turns out to have been revealed, the consequences come after such release, not prior to it.

I think.
Click to expand...
Not sure. I just know that some books like Valerie Plame's had to be vetted before it could be published to be sure no confidential information was in it.
 
Meadmaker said:
The above post shows exactly why this impeachment is a politically losing action for the Democrats.

By the way, the last election was fair. The next election will be fair.
Click to expand...

In the last election, hundreds of thousands of urban voters, mostly minorities were denied the vote due to errors or made up "issues" with their voter registrations. Coinciedentally this happened in the same states whose election systems were hacked by Russia. There were nation wide reports of voting machine problems including flipped votes. Tons of bot-driven social media posts influenced swing voters.

2016 was NOT a "fair" election, not by any reasonable definition of the term.
 
Ladewig said:
Just five weeks ago, a Trump supporter stood in front of cameras and said he and his .357 Magnum were comfortable with resorting to violence if they tried to remove the president.
Click to expand...

They've been doing that off and on his entire reign on social media, and been allowed to get away with by Jack and Zuck.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Not sure. I just know that some books like Valerie Plame's had to be vetted before it could be published to be sure no confidential information was in it.
Click to expand...

You may be right. I’m thinking “Pentagon Papers”, but would need to research.

But I think if I had classified information and wanted to self-publish it on the Internet or otherwise, nothing could stop me. Even if a restraining order were issued, I’d still be free to publish in violation of said order and face the consequences.

In the Plame case, I think such vetting was voluntary by the writer to avoid legal consequences down the road. But, again, not sure on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom