Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minoosh said:
Oh PLEASE call Giuliani, please please please. Giuliani himself doesn't even know what he's going to say next.
Click to expand...
He's not even on Dem's list. As Trump's personal attorney (among other roles, each declared when convenient) it's too easy to play the atty-client card.

Fortunately SDNY is all over him.
 
varwoche said:
He's not even on Dem's list. As Trump's personal attorney (among other roles, each declared when convenient) it's too easy to play the atty-client card.

Fortunately SDNY is all over him.
Click to expand...
But it would be so massively entertaining! That's the important part!
 
acbytesla said:
And Pelosi has suggested she might withhold sending the articles to the Senate.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting gambit. I wonder if she can do that.

TRUMP IS IMPEACHED!!! but don't tell the Senate.

If that's legal, I think it is her best move.

I see two possible ways that Trump could be booted from office. Both are long shots.

One way is to goad him so much that he actually does something so reckless and obviously illegal that he loses public support. He's so impulsive it might work.

The other way is to hope he is forced to release his tax returns, and then he is exposed as a guy who has lost a lot of money, lived like a king, but never paid taxes, and once again his public support plummets. If she can actually withhold the articles of impeachment, she should.

I don't think she can, though. The House has the sole power of impeachment, and that has already happened. The Senate has the sole power of trial. I would think that would include when the trial starts. However, this is a lot of untrodden ground, so I'm content to sit back and grab the popcorn and wait to see what happens. It would at least be more entertaining than the expected outcome. If nothing big happens, I already know how this movie ends.
 
Meadmaker said:
That's an interesting gambit. I wonder if she can do that.

TRUMP IS IMPEACHED!!! but don't tell the Senate.

If that's legal, I think it is her best move.

I see two possible ways that Trump could be booted from office. Both are long shots.

One way is to goad him so much that he actually does something so reckless and obviously illegal that he loses public support. He's so impulsive it might work.

The other way is to hope he is forced to release his tax returns, and then he is exposed as a guy who has lost a lot of money, lived like a king, but never paid taxes, and once again his public support plummets. If she can actually withhold the articles of impeachment, she should.

I don't think she can, though. The House has the sole power of impeachment, and that has already happened. The Senate has the sole power of trial. I would think that would include when the trial starts. However, this is a lot of untrodden ground, so I'm content to sit back and grab the popcorn and wait to see what happens. It would at least be more entertaining than the expected outcome. If nothing big happens, I already know how this movie ends.
Click to expand...

She can withhold sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate as long as a majority of House members allow her to.

It's a little unusual for the House to hold onto a bill that has passed the house, but it is not unheard of. This is no different. More serious obviously but handled the same way.
 
Meadmaker said:
I see two possible ways that Trump could be booted from office. Both are long shots.

One way is to goad him so much that he actually does something so reckless and obviously illegal that he loses public support. He's so impulsive it might work.

The other way is to hope he is forced to release his tax returns, and then he is exposed as a guy who has lost a lot of money, lived like a king, but never paid taxes, and once again his public support plummets. If she can actually withhold the articles of impeachment, she should.
Click to expand...


I don't know if your second way is likely to cost Trump any support. The Trump Cult has overlooked so many flaws already that I don't see them being bothered if it is revealed that Trump exaggerates his wealth and cheats on his taxes.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Apparently going back to 2016... based on the statements of some of the participants in today's hearing. Their evidence? Trump making snarky remarks about russia looking into Clinton's emails and joking about china getting involved. With as strong as the evidence is supposed to be... Its hard to understand why they need campaign zingers from 2016 to make the case...
Click to expand...

In any bribery case, proving Intent via the past words and actions is what any prosecutor would do.
It is 100% enough to cover that part of bribery - the quid-pro-quo being the other.

Let's put it like this: the argument isn't that Trump committed a crime. The argument is that President Trump cannot commit a crime. If he had any other position, it would be a no-brainer to have him impeached and sent to jail.
That is why the Dems didn't put it in the Articles directly.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
In any bribery case, proving Intent via the past words and actions is what any prosecutor would do.
It is 100% enough to cover that part of bribery - the quid-pro-quo being the other.

Let's put it like this: the argument isn't that Trump committed a crime. The argument is that President Trump cannot commit a crime. If he had any other position, it would be a no-brainer to have him impeached and sent to jail.
That is why the Dems didn't put it in the Articles directly.
Click to expand...

Occam's razor would suggest the reason they didn't include a crime is because there is no crime to include.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Final official vote:

On the first article (Abuse of Power)
Democrats: 230 yeas, 2 nays
Republicans: 197 nays
Independent: 1 yea
One member, Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, voted present*

On the second article (Obstruction of Congress)
Democrats: 229 yeas, 3 nays
Republicans: 197 nays
Independent: 1 yea
One member, Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, voted present

(*A "present" vote does not count towards or against the passage of a bill, but it contributes towards the quorum, which is the minimum number of Members required in attendance for the body to conduct business legally)
Click to expand...

Although she has denied it, I wonder if she's planning a third-party run?

She's the only one on either side to vote "present".
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Occam's razor would suggest the reason they didn't include a crime is because there is no crime to include.
Click to expand...

You want to apply Occam's Razor to Trump?
What do you think does transferring more than $2milion in donation raised for Veterans instead into his Campaign (something he has admitted) suggest about him?
Does Occam's Razor suggest that he did that because he is not crooked?
 
Last edited:
One thing that surprises me a bit is that I have not seen any political Facebook posts from my contacts for what seems like weeks. By any type of supporter. I was tempted to make mention of the news tonight but I'm afraid that would break the logjam.

acbytesla said:
And Pelosi has suggested she might withhold sending the articles to the Senate.
Click to expand...

I'd be OK with that for a while -- a month or two. I want to see the narrative be "IMPEACHED" for a while. There's no way Trump can deny or spin that. Once it gets spit out by the Senate, Trump's narrative will be "I'M INNOCENT!!"
 
Last edited:
It should be easy to frame the Withholding as giving Trump the chance to bring forth his exculpatory first-hand witnesses like Pompeo. Mnuchin, Bolton, Guiliani ...
 
alfaniner said:
There's no way Trump can deny or spin that.
Click to expand...

He can spin that pretty easily. The spin has already been in full swing, because tonight's events were completely predictable, and predicted.


I'm constantly amazed how people can get Trump wrong at every turn. I've told this anecdote before, but I was confident Hillary was going to win in 2016 right up until the weekend before the election. Then I heard her blitz Michigan with ads about...….things no one cared about. I was just cringing. Out of touch, in a big way, and no one seems to have learned.

Just remember, it was the Republicans who wanted to force a true role call vote, so that they could use the footage in the campaign ads. Either they're wrong, or the Dems are wrong. I suppose we'll see as the saga unfolds.
 
The Republicans will block it, his base will be wound up, he will win again.

Keep saying this.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Democrats believe it's for his personal gain because it targets the bidens and benefits him for the 2020 elections. Most conservatives believe that his actions do not constitute abuse of power in his self interest because part of his campaign promise was to root out corruption, which is tied to a conflict of interest with biden.
Click to expand...

Conservatives might say that, but I doubt many believe it, because it is unbelievable. Trump wasn't trying to root out corruption in Ukraine, and we know this for a couple of reasons:

1. He never said anything about corruption in any other context than this particular incident with the Ukrainian prosecutor and Joe Biden.

2. Biden's actions made it more likely that his son would be prosecuted because the prosecutor was fired for not investigating corruption.

Those are the facts. They are undisputable. I know you might well try, but you can't argue with reality.

Grizzly Bear said:
The third angle is that he was compelling Ukraine to investigate the bidens conflict of interest, and dealing with whether or not the leadership in ukraine was getting its own corruption under control; that he is in the wrong regardless but that there is enough ambiguity surrounding his justifications to not warrant an impeachment.
Click to expand...

There is no amiguity. None at all. Trump and his goblins have confessed.

Grizzly Bear said:
So YES there are rational doubts about his intent that are not answerable through simple partisan hackery. Much of the bribery component is predicated on the witness testimony they acquired rather than on the transcripts of the phone call which is publicly available.
Click to expand...

There is no room for rational doubt. The doubt we are reading about is manufactured by a thouroughly dishonest campaign. I don't belive you put any real stock in said doubt, because doing so is utterly stupid, and you're not.

Also, there is no "bribery component".

Grizzly Bear said:
Bribery was floated by pelosi and other house democrats multiple times as the defined constitutional offense... and while it did not get written as an impeachment article, the money aspect was amended as a tenant of the "abuse of power" article.
Click to expand...

That's because it was abuse of power and not bribery. It's textbook abuse of power.

Grizzly Bear said:
The rest dealing with obstruction of congress. The president had no control over the house inquiry beyond his refusal to testify. They may have a case here but out of the two charges it's the weaker of them.
Click to expand...

No, it's slam dunk, and believing otherwise is again utterly stupid, and you're not, so you're simply gaslighting.


Grizzly Bear said:
If this is what you think of my position then you're going to have to back this up. If not...You can keep peddling this red herring if you want but it does not address my points and therefore I can care less that you think this going forward.
Click to expand...

You have no points. You are just regurgitating Republican gaslighting.

Again, there has never been a more deserved impeachment in US history. What Trump did was exactly what the founders worried about when they wrote impeachment into the constitution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom