Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
BrooklynBaby said:
Pelosi is now blaming Trump for her refusing to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. it's Mitch's fault, too, according to her. Actually, it's her neverending lust for power that caused her to cave to her Squad of Morons and dig the hole she's currently wallowing in, and none of us really cares if she ever manages to dig herself out or not. Like Mitch said, she has no leverage in threatening to withhold something they didn't want to begin with.


Nancy Pelosi
✔
@SpeakerPelosi
The House cannot choose our impeachment managers until we know what sort of trial the Senate will conduct.

President Trump blocked his own witnesses and documents from the House, and from the American people, on phony complaints about the House process. What is his excuse now?
Click to expand...

*reads thread, notices Brooklyn didn't see the 'own goal' in linking to the tweet*

Good work, bud.
 
Paul2 said:
I don't understand how "deciding policy in a democracy," and "honoring the will of the majority while protecting the interests of the minority" applies to impeachment at all. Impeaching a president is not (or should not) be about policy disagreements.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think that impeachment is and only can be a policy question. Again, it's not "did the President commit a crime?" Bill Clinton committed a crime. The question is "does it make sense to remove the president right now for these reasons?" And that is a policy question.
 
I'm not sure if this has been posted, but it looks like the Dem's are starting to reach out to a few other offices after the recent email leaks.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is asking the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for an opinion on the legality of President Trump's decision to hold up Ukraine aid.
Click to expand...

He makes some good points.

Van Hollen said in his letter that under the ICA, a president has to notify Congress if they want to claw back or freeze funding already passed by lawmakers. But, "not only did the President not notify Congress of a deferral or rescission," Van Hollen noted that the Defense Department told Congress twice that the funds would be obligated.
Click to expand...

It looks like the Dems are going to utilize every channel they possible can with regards to gathering details. Here's a link to the story.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
"The email, which was one of many released in a 20 December document dump in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the Centre for Public Integrity,"

Apparently a court ordered them to do it, and they complied.
Click to expand...
Wonders never cease.

But this was freakin' classified! Someone must have tipped them off re: what to ask for, and specifically for the declassification. That's the part I don't get. Wouldn't this take a deliberate act of the executive branch?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Those are different metrics.

The point is that before now it was clear that the Democrats were playing by the rules and that the Republicans weren't. Now that has switched round.
Click to expand...
Well I'm a Democrat and I don't believe that. Who are these Democrats you speak of and why do you think they are buying the narrative McConnell and Trump are selling? It's ludicrous, IMO, that Pelosi isn't playing fair by demanding a trial in the Senate, not just a dismissal.

The polls don't suggest Democrats want Pelosi to roll over.
 
plague311 said:
To piggy back on this, I believe they have to justify anything that they with hold or won't provide. I can't remember, but I also think the information that's included is decided on by an arbiter. I'm open to being wrong about that though.
Click to expand...
Not to my knowledge. But as I stated above it's the declassification part that really puzzles me.

It doesn't surprise me that there are people in government who want this info to get out. But I don't understand the mechanics of a judge ordering declassification.
 
theprestige said:
I disagree. I think that impeachment is and only can be a policy question. Again, it's not "did the President commit a crime?" Bill Clinton committed a crime. The question is "does it make sense to remove the president right now for these reasons?" And that is a policy question.
Click to expand...
First, it's not "It's not 'did the President commit a crime.' " It's "Did the President violate the Constitution or commit one of the actions specified in the Constitution that define an impeachable offense.

That is not policy in the sense of foreign policy, or economic policy, etc. It is much like a legal question, although because the Congress deals with it, it is better to call it a legalistic issue.

Do we (should we?) merely decide to impeach and convict a President as a matter a policy in the same regard as we decide what type of health care system we want as a matter of policy? No, the Constitution says that there are certain impeachable offenses and it is up to the Congress to decide about that. The similarity to the courts and the legal system is very close; you have written offenses specified and institutions defined to determine whether the offenses have been committed. ETA: And, penalties are specified for violations.
 
Last edited:
OK, the emails were heavily redacted. Not quite heavily enough. The Trump Administration froze the aid and tried to keep it secret. Ninety minutes after the perfect phone call.

Did they run out of Sharpies to black stuff out?
 
theprestige said:
I disagree. I think that impeachment is and only can be a policy question. Again, it's not "did the President commit a crime?" Bill Clinton committed a crime. The question is "does it make sense to remove the president right now for these reasons?" And that is a policy question.
Click to expand...

I guess you could call it a policy question.

You could also call it a corruption question.

You could also call it a National Security question.

You could also call it the value of free and fair elections process question.

Or maybe what is the value of checks and balances?

Eash must decide whether we want to write a blank check?

I don't.

If you don't stop him today, what makes you think he'll ever stop? Do you think with this precedent that he will stop?
 
Minoosh said:
Why on earth do they declassify this stuff? Do they think nobody reads "document dumps"? Or is it a brazen move that offers certain facts as if they don't matter - that it was fine for Trump to do this?
Click to expand...

I think a news agency requested it in a FOIA request. Their mistake was using their work email.
 
acbytesla said:
Absolutely outplayed. The Republicans thought they could dispose of this in two weeks, declare victory and have this in their rear view mirror. Instead, they're in purgatory, not sure what happens next.

it stays in the news cycle week after week.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
Yeah now they have to wait weeks or months before they claim victory and dispose of this. What's the difference, in the end?
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
Air time.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Call it free advertising slamming Trump.

McConnell is now saying that he is open to calling witnesses. At the moment, this sounds like a faint.
 
As long as the President operates still close to the political and social norms, Impeachment is indeed political: Clinton was the obvious case for this.
But at some point it has to become a new non-partisan issue.
 
Minoosh said:
OK, the emails were heavily redacted. Not quite heavily enough. The Trump Administration froze the aid and tried to keep it secret. Ninety minutes after the perfect phone call.

Did they run out of Sharpies to black stuff out?
Click to expand...


Can you explain what the significance is? We know what's in the phone call - no open threats at all but a lot of Zelenksi telling Trump what he wants to hear, if anything Z was a nice little servant. Who knew nothing about the aid being in question. So, it looks to me like it simply was Ukraine day at the White House. How do you think the two things are connected? Why should Trump order the guy to stop the aid immediately after that phone call?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Can you explain what the significance is? We know what's in the phone call - no open threats at all but a lot of Zelenksi telling Trump what he wants to hear, if anything Z was a nice little servant. Who knew nothing about the aid being in question. So, it looks to me like it simply was Ukraine day at the White House. How do you think the two things are connected? Why should Trump order the guy to stop the aid immediately after that phone call?
Click to expand...

Because if the aid went through then that bargain chip is gone.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Can you explain what the significance is? We know what's in the phone call - no open threats at all but a lot of Zelenksi telling Trump what he wants to hear, if anything Z was a nice little servant. Who knew nothing about the aid being in question. So, it looks to me like it simply was Ukraine day at the White House. How do you think the two things are connected? Why should Trump order the guy to stop the aid immediately after that phone call?
Click to expand...

You really have to be dumb as a post to think Zelensky didn't know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom