Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Don said:
I didn't realise that there was a similar attack on democracy in New Zealand with Jacinda Ardern calling for hostile foreign powers to interfere in the last and next elections; the Labour party engaging in wide-scale gerrymandering, voter suppression and voter roll purging; Jacinda Ardern herself enriching herself and her family at the expense of the New Zealand taxpayer by channelling government spending towards her own business; Jacinda Ardern installing her own judges who will then rule on matters affecting her.

Maybe these things are just going unreported in the UK.
Click to expand...


Boris has been making noises about changing the way SC judges are selected, apparently the current ones aren’t Brexiteer enough.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
That is something a partisan would say..


...I may be the biggest non-partisan here. I even let my wife decide what my vote should be.
Click to expand...

While your claim of non-partisan is something a partisan who deflects would say. So if your wife does not want you to support Donald Trump, you will not defend him? She, therefore, determines what partisan you are?
 
theprestige said:
Bated breath*

From "abated" - you're holding your breath in anticipation. "Baited breath" means what? You've been eating a lot of fish bait? You're using your breath to attract fish?
Click to expand...

Thanks for this little tidbit. <snip>


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rules 0/12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's no need to be uncivil to each other. If we can't topple a president or destroy democracy without losing our tempers it could suggest we aren't quite gentlemen and ladies!
 
It is clear now that Pelosi will not send the articles of Impeachment to the Senate until the Senate agrees to what the Democrats consider to be a fair trial.

It's all in McConnell's court. Tick Tock.
 
So the Republicans - who don't want a trial - not only get to not have a trial, they get to blame it on the Democrats. Doesn't seem like a smart move.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The argument can be made that Trump isn't impeached until the Senate receives the Articles;
Click to expand...

You can make a bad faith argument for anything. But once the gavel fell, the deed was done. Trump was IMPEACHED. It was in huge type on my newspaper the next day. Even Nixon wasn't impeached.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
So the Republicans - who don't want a trial - not only get to not have a trial, they get to blame it on the Democrats. Doesn't seem like a smart move.
Click to expand...

I think it is incredibly smart. They were blaming the Democrats any way. Let the GOP lie and whine and spin.

Trump is forever an impeached President. The third in US History.
 
acbytesla said:
I think it is incredibly smart. They were blaming the Democrats any way. Let the GOP lie and whine and spin.

Trump is forever an impeached President. The third in US History.
Click to expand...

He was already forever an impeached president. The trial wouldn't have changed that any more that Bill Clinton's trial did.

This changes absolutely nothing, except for giving the Republicans more ammunition to call the whole process rigged and a witch hunt. It's not going to accomplish anything legally, and the only people it makes look bad are the Democrats.

What's the up side?
 
Last edited:
There's also the question of whether or not it's actually legal and/or democratic. Can any Speaker of the House hold back anything they don't like which passes through Congress? If so, then what's the point of Congress?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
He was already forever an impeached president. The trial wouldn't have changed that any more that Bill Clinton's trial did.

This changes absolutely nothing, except for giving the Republicans more ammunition to call the whole process rigged and a witch hunt. It's not going to accomplish anything legally, and the only people it makes look bad are the Democrats.

What's the up side?
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. I'll present my evidence and you present the lies. It's all a question if the truth sells or a gish gallop.
 
acbytesla said:
I respectfully disagree. I'll present my evidence and you present the lies. It's all a question if the truth sells or a gish gallop.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by this. It doesn't seem to be an explanation for how this changes anything for the better for Democrats.

If you disagree, can you explain why you disagree?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom