• 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.
BrooklynBaby said:
Ken Starr says Piglosi's abuse of power by seizing control of the House Judiciary Committee and not allowing a robust debate may very well convince The Turtle to just hold a vote to dismiss.
Click to expand...
First of all, any sort of impeachment proceedings in the senate are going to be presided over Justice Roberts (as described out in the constitution), so the ability of Moscow Mitch to influence the proceedings will be limited.

Secondly, why exactly are you assuming that even if they had a 'robust' debate in the Judiciary committee that the republicans wouldn't vote to acquit anyways? The republicans are corrupt. Regardless of whatever evidence is provided, they will not vote to remove Trump. Suggesting that giving more power to the republicans in the name of 'robust debate' might somehow convince them to remove Trump is foolish.

We have seen how the republicans act... holding a pizza party to complain about access to the hearings, when they actually had the ability to actually attend, demands to interview the whistleblower (which would amount to illegal intimidation), having Nunes involved (even though he's got a clear conflict of interest). Trying to allow more 'robust debate' will likely just result in more conspiracy theory nonsense, more grand standing, more bunk from the republican side.
 
plague311 said:
Piglosi...that's about as much as I would expect in all honesty. Why is it the right always has to compare women to animals? Hildabeast, Piglosi, etc.? This says way more about the people that use it than it does about their targets. It's childish, lame, and I don't even know what it's trying to get at. I'd ask for an explanation but it would probably be witty as the name.
Click to expand...

Downright Trumpian, in fact. He thinks childish name-calling is clever.
 
The president bribing a vulnerable ally by illegaly withholding congress aproved military aid they desperately needed to defend themselves in a war against the territory seizing plans of a murderous dictator who interfered with US elections to help the president win is fine. All so that the president could force this ally to announce an investigation into a political rival and a prior American investigation into his possible Russian collusion in said election, with his nutty personal lawyer causing horror among career diplomats with his back channel negotiations, including with convicted criminals. Get over it.
 
Last edited:
The Democrats need to start using the talking point, "this wasn't about corruption in Ukraine, that's a lie".
 
Segnosaur said:
First of all, any sort of impeachment proceedings in the senate are going to be presided over Justice Roberts (as described out in the constitution), so the ability of Moscow Mitch to influence the proceedings will be limited.
Click to expand...

Not so. The President of the Senate has no more power over the proceedings when it's a Chief Justice, than when it's the Vice President. The actual proceedings are determined by the rules of the Senate, which are under the purview of the Senate majority leader.
 
theprestige said:
Not so. The President of the Senate has no more power over the proceedings when it's a Chief Justice, than when it's the Vice President. The actual proceedings are determined by the rules of the Senate, which are under the purview of the Senate majority leader.
Click to expand...
I believe the rules of the Senate were adopted and can be changed only by a majority of Senators, not by the majority leader, although perhaps the majority leader could stall any move to change the rules?
 
theprestige said:
Not so. The President of the Senate has no more power over the proceedings when it's a Chief Justice, than when it's the Vice President. The actual proceedings are determined by the rules of the Senate, which are under the purview of the Senate majority leader.
Click to expand...

That is totally untrue. The President of the Senate can rule on all proceedings as he/she sees fit. And each member must not speak during the proceedings. Even the Senate Majority leader. They cannot interrupt on pain of imprisonment. This is part of the oath each takes prior to the proceedings.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It wouldn't matter if it was. Lying about a blow job that wasn't directly related to abuse of power is not IN ANY WAY (unless you count 'can be described in English words') like what Trump is being charged with.
Click to expand...

Agreed...I've been saying this all along.
 
smartcooky said:
Well, here is a start start for you, gleaned from posts by This is the End, myself et al

Late 2018: Rudy Giuliani sends his two (now indicted) associates, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas to Ukraine to search for information to undermine the Special Counsel's investigation, and to try to find dirt on Trump's political opponents. They begin a smear campaign against Ukraine Amb Marie Yovanovich, who they see as a roadblock in their attempts encourage corruption to keep taking place in Ukraine.

March 5: Amb Marie Yovanovich gives a speech to the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, decrying the lack of progress to combat corruption, saying: "It is increasingly clear that Ukraine's once-in-a-generation opportunity for change has not yet resulted in the anti-corruption or rule of law reforms that Ukrainians expect or deserve."

March 12: Joe Biden gives his first strong signal yet that he will soon get into the 2020 presidential race.

Mid-march: The smear campaign by Giuliani and his associates, Parnas and Fruman begins to ramp up.

April 21: Volodymyr Zelensky elected President of Ukraine.

April 24: Trump recalls Amb Yovanivich.

April 25: Joe Biden formally announces that he is running for POTUS in 2020.

July 25th: The crime. (The extortion phone call to the Ukraine for help setting up Biden.)

Aug 12th: The whistle-blower complaint.

Aug 28th: News breaks about the extortion phone call and aid being withheld.

Sept 9th (Day): Investigations Begin.

Sept 9th (Night): Trump finds out about the investigation and then makes the "I WANT NOTHING. I WANT NOTHING. NO QUID PRO QUO!" coverup phone call.

Sept 11th: Aid to Ukraine released.

Sept 24rd (Morning): Impeachment inquiry leaked.
Sept 24rd (Afternoon): Trump phone call to Pelosi asking if she and he can "work something out" to "do something about this whole whistle-blower thing". He even tells her that he is prepared to put gun control on the table in exchange. (Her response to him was only that "He and his people should start obeying the law").
Sept 24th (Evening): Impeachment inquiry is announced.​
Click to expand...

I don't believe I've heard this part until now. It seems like that would be a big deal. Like when he asked before, I think it was about Comey "letting the Stone thing go"?
 
alfaniner said:
I don't believe I've heard this part until now. It seems like that would be a big deal. Like when he asked before, I think it was about Comey "letting the Stone thing go"?
Click to expand...
According to press reports, Trump interpreted what she said as a deal not to impeach. And that's why he freaked when they went forward a couple days later.
 
Paul2 said:
I believe the rules of the Senate were adopted and can be changed only by a majority of Senators, not by the majority leader, although perhaps the majority leader could stall any move to change the rules?
Click to expand...

I'm not clear on all the details, but I do know that the President of the Senate doesn't actually have authority over the rules of the Senate, or how they conduct their business. His two main duties are to publish the decisions of the Senate, and cast tie-breaker votes. It is this second duty that makes it necessary to bring in the Chief Justice to fill the role, when the business of the Senate is impeachment of the President or Vice President.
 
theprestige said:
I'm not clear on all the details, but I do know that the President of the Senate doesn't actually have authority over the rules of the Senate, or how they conduct their business. His two main duties are to publish the decisions of the Senate, and cast tie-breaker votes. It is this second duty that makes it necessary to bring in the Chief Justice to fill the role, when the business of the Senate is impeachment of the President or Vice President.
Click to expand...

That's the Vice President, not specifically the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate calls members to order, recognizes members and makes rulings according to the rules of the Senate at that time. Just as Schiff "presides" over the House Intelligence Committee and Nadler presides over the Judiciary committee, the President of the Senate presides over the floor of the Senate.

The "rules" of the Senate are made at the beginning of the session and approved by majority vote at that time.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Did Piglosi say the lies in the articles of impeachment are going to involve Russia and not Ukraine? If so, that's hilarious. Oh, Trump's approval at Rasmussen is up to 52% today, which is probably why she rushed out and made the announcement.
Click to expand...

EK9flI2XsAEAKhO.png
 
theprestige said:
I'm not clear on all the details, but I do know that the President of the Senate doesn't actually have authority over the rules of the Senate, or how they conduct their business. His two main duties are to publish the decisions of the Senate, and cast tie-breaker votes. It is this second duty that makes it necessary to bring in the Chief Justice to fill the role, when the business of the Senate is impeachment of the President or Vice President.
Click to expand...

No, it's explicitly laid out in the Constitution.

"Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provides:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present."

Notice the word "preside". The founders thought this was a trial, and there was supposed to be a judge; i.e., the Chief Justice.
 
d4m10n said:
I don't disagree with this at all, as an appropriately cynical model of how to predict senatorial behavior. What I'm getting at, though, is that the entire point of oath-taking is to bind oneself to specified principles even (perhaps especially) when doing so is bad for you personally, e.g. reducing one's chances at re-election. Elected officials who wax on about the wisdom of the founders (e.g. Oklahoma Senators) can set aside their solemn promise to defend the constitution whenever doing so runs against popular opinion back home (e.g. Okies) but they cannot expect us to take them seriously as men of integrity thereafter.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of people happy to take the Republicans - Trump included - seriously as men and women of integrity.
 
Trump Tweets

Where’s the Fake Whistleblower? Where’s Whistleblower number 2? Where’s the phony informer who got it all wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom