Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
ETA3: Has anyone tried to list out the probable articles yet?
Click to expand...

From the questioning of the experts, I'd guess at bribery/extortion for the phone call/withholding the aid/withholding the White House visit, obstruction of justice for Mueller, and obstruction of Congress for non-compliance with subpoenas, etc.
 
bruto said:
But it is also true that technically he was not impeached for the blowjob but for perjury
Click to expand...

Yeah. Over a blowjob.


theprestige said:
Enh. President Clinton got away with perjury, and the country didn't fall apart. I don't see the country falling apart if President Trump also gets away with perjury.
Click to expand...

Yes, because perjury about a blowjob is exactly as important and dangerous to national security as perjury about giving away national secrets, covering for interference in the democratic process of the US, and pushing a country towards oblivion to help your political campaign.

You have absolutely got it.
 
acbytesla said:
Can you say "false equivalence". Clinton perjured himself about an irrelevant and personal event.

In contrast, Donald Trump BRIBED a foreign power to interfere in the upcoming election and followed it up by Obstructing Justice and Obstructing Congress by instructing government officials not to cooperate with the investigation.

  • Is bribery or the solicitation of bribery ok with you?
  • Do you believe in check and balances ?
  • Do you believe in fair elections?
  • Is the power of the President unlimited?
  • Is it ok for the President to leverage the power of his office for help from foreign powers win reelection?
Click to expand...

Well of course he does and of course it's not. But theprestige "hasn't" yet seen any evidence of wrongdoing. But don't let that fool you. He really doesn't like Trump.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
From the questioning of the experts, I'd guess at bribery/extortion for the phone call/withholding the aid/withholding the White House visit, obstruction of justice for Mueller, and obstruction of Congress for non-compliance with subpoenas, etc.
Click to expand...

That seems about right to me.

NYT sources say there may be two Ukraine-related articles:
Privately, Democrats believe they could end up with three to four articles of impeachment: one or two focused on the president’s alleged abuse of power related to Ukraine, another chronicling his obstruction of congressional requests for witnesses and documents, and potentially an article focused on findings by Mr. Mueller charging Mr. Trump with obstructing justice when he tried to thwart the Russia investigation.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing one for conditioning an official act on a personal benefit (i.e. common law bribery) and another for something else, perhaps the abuse of power at OMB in violation of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974WP.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Come on Damion, Cherry picking out Trump's additional perjury potential is a dismissive segue.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, Ginger.

The specific perjury I'm talking about here was reported by NYT a while back.

Representative Val B. Demings, brought up Mr. Trump’s written responses and asked whether “his answers showed that he wasn’t always being truthful.”

Rather than demurring as he had to similar questions, Mr. Mueller instead appeared to confirm her assessment, responding, “I would say generally.”
Click to expand...

Ms. Demings raised her question in the context of Mr. Trump’s claim to know nothing during the campaign about what WikiLeaks had or was planning to publish. Little is publicly known about the Trump campaign’s actions related to WikiLeaks because that portion of the Mueller report was heavily redacted. The justification for the censorship is that the information relates to a current matter, presumably the indictment of Mr. Trump’s longtime adviser Roger J. Stone Jr.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that lying under oath about subverting free and fair elections is at least as important as lying under oath about (admittedly unethical) office liaisons.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

The Turtle had said previously there would be a 6-8 week trial and he didn't have the votes to dismiss, notwithstanding the fact he has 53 Republicans in the Senate.

If you don't understand the importance of both sides being able to call witnesses, I can't be of any help.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
The Turtle had said previously there would be a 6-8 week trial and he didn't have the votes to dismiss, notwithstanding the fact he has 53 Republicans in the Senate.

If you don't understand the importance of both sides being able to call witnesses, I can't be of any help.
Click to expand...

And how does Trump telling his folks not to testify factor into this?
 
I believe Mitch McConnell when he says he intends to have a 6-8 week trial.

I do not believe he intends to have a 6-8 trial of Donald Trump.

The Republicans are salivating at the idea of a 6-8 week trial of all the Democratic movers and shakers.

Hell if the phrase "Hillary Clinton's e-mail servers" doesn't come up more often in the Senate Trial of Donald Trump then anything Trump did, I'll be shocked.

Hell at the rate this is going Bill Clinton is going to be recalled just to be punished for that damn blowjob.
 
Last edited:
BrooklynBaby said:
If you don't understand the importance of both sides being able to call witnesses, I can't be of any help.
Click to expand...
That's ok.
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove breach of rule 12


As for the importance of 'both sides calling witnesses', so far the Republicans have made the most noise about calling:

- The whistleblower. Which would 1) probably be illegal, 2) would probably put their life at risk, and 3) would be totally irrelevant, since the evidence revealed so far goes way beyond what the whistleblower initially revealed

- Hunter Biden, which would be useless because whatever actions Biden was doing (all evidence points to him not doing anything illegal), it is simply not relevant to the actions of the president.

If the republicans actually had a reasonable witness to call, someone who could provide actual real evidence (not just someone they can use in a smear campaign) I'd love to hear it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JoeMorgue said:
I believe Mitch McConnell plans to have a 6-8 week trial.

I do not believe he intends to have a 6-8 trial of Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
Joe Biden will be put on trial, for the middling offense of allowing his fully grown failson off-leash.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
The Turtle had said previously there would be a 6-8 week trial and he didn't have the votes to dismiss, notwithstanding the fact he has 53 Republicans in the Senate.

If you don't understand the importance of both sides being able to call witnesses, I can't be of any help.
Click to expand...

You aren't really addressing the post.
The question is: given the right kind of statements from the right kind of witnesses, do you think Republicans will convict Trump?
It seems rather clear that no amount of facts will be enough for them to do so.
 
Belz... said:
And how does Trump telling his folks not to testify factor into this?
Click to expand...


The "importance (to Republicans) of both sides being able to call witnesses" is clear from who they want to testify and about what: anything other than what Trump did and his accomplices.
 
Newt Gringrich is complaining that this is "modern day lynching" and it is sad that it is happening "on the eve of Christmas..."

Now, aside from the fact that it is following a Constitutional process (which lynchings were not at all), it has been pointed out that Newt Gringrich's congress impeached Bill Clinton 6 DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS!!!!

Reality has no bearing in any of this.
 
pgwenthold said:
Newt Gringrich is complaining that this is "modern day lynching" and it is sad that it is happening "on the eve of Christmas..."

Now, aside from the fact that it is following a Constitutional process (which lynchings were not at all), it has been pointed out that Newt Gringrich's congress impeached Bill Clinton 6 DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS!!!!

Reality has no bearing in any of this.
Click to expand...

Newt's hypocrisy is legendary. He was cheating on his wife during the whole of the Clinton debacle, and he made so many family values, infidelity is awful speeches.
 
pgwenthold said:
Newt Gringrich is complaining that this is "modern day lynching" and it is sad that it is happening "on the eve of Christmas..."

Now, aside from the fact that it is following a Constitutional process (which lynchings were not at all), it has been pointed out that Newt Gringrich's congress impeached Bill Clinton 6 DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS!!!!

Reality has no bearing in any of this.
Click to expand...

Gingrich is one of the architects of the modern, take-no-prisoners, anti-science, ****-you GOP. He should have no place in any discussion.
 
Belz... said:
Gingrich is one of the architects of the modern, take-no-prisoners, anti-science, ****-you GOP. He should have no place in any discussion.
Click to expand...

for every such individual, you should have to lose one whiney, nanny state loving Liberal as well for checks and balancers sake.
 
rockysmith76 said:
for every such individual, you should have to lose one whiney, nanny state loving Liberal as well for checks and balancers sake.
Click to expand...

No. The world's not a zero-sum game. It's not my fault that the GOP is beyond salvation. The Democrats are far from perfect and I disagree with some of their politics, but they are better.
 
Number of people who think there needs to be a "check and balance" between political parties is rather terrifying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom