Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[acbytesla]

It goes without saying that if McConnell actually agrees to something, that makes it more likely he'll do that thing. For whatever reason, you decided to say it anyway.

How is that agreement supposed to be achieved?

And I'm sorry, but the idea of the House the Senate, and the president all getting together to pass this agreement into law is insane.

Welcome to Trumpworld!

 

[theprestige]

Welcome to Trumpworld!

I would rather you answer my question, than dodge it with this bit of clownery.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you'd actually bothered to follow the conversation, rather than jumping in on the wrong end of it just to try to score points, you wouldn't be having this problem now.

It you'd actually bothered to say, you missed [fill in the blank] you might be happier.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Mitch McConnell Says He's Not Ruling Out Calling Witnesses in Trump's Impeachment Trial

Is the Turtle caving to Donny's insane demands?? After all, it's Donny who is wiffling on about "THE DEMS WON'T ALLOW WITNESSES!"

‘Family feud’: Trump still grumbling about witness-free impeachment trial
The president is publicly deferring to Senate Republicans, but privately harboring a desire to create a flashy, testimony-filled trial.

He's so easy to trap. Granted he usually just slips out by changing his tune.

 

[Belz...]

I think that logic is suspicious.

If I’m understanding you correctly, Clinton was not really impeached for the actions put forth in his Articles of Impeachment, but for other motives.

Sounds like something taken from the current Republican playbook: Trump was not really impeached for the actions put forth in his Articles of Impeachment, but for other motives - i.e. they hate him, they’re afraid of losing in 2020, etc.

Oh stop it. The two are not remotely similar. We already know Clinton's case included a sharp turn to the right from a previous investigation to a sex scandal, and when he lied about it, he's impeached. The blowjob is an integral part of the known proceedings. They knew he'd lie about it, but the whole deal about the sex was completely irrelevant.

It is absolutely not comparable to Trump's situation.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Oh stop it. The two are not remotely similar.

Stipulated. I’ve said here or elsewhere that Trump’s misdeeds are orders of magnitude greater than anything Clinton could have dreamed of.

But the logic of an argument doesn’t hinge on the size of the thing in question.

 

[acbytesla]

I would rather you answer my question, than dodge it with this bit of clownery.

It's called negotiation and compromise.

 

[smartcooky]

Oh stop it. The two are not remotely similar. We already know Clinton's case included a sharp turn to the right from a previous investigation to a sex scandal

And wasn't that after a sharp turn to the left from a previous financial investigation known as the Whitewater scandal?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The Democratic legislators can most certainly say they continue to play by the rules.

Yes, your answer is the same - it still doesn't actually address what I said. Well, feel free to continue talking past me. I'm not going to bother any more.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

ETA: If this is such a big win for Trump, why is he complaining about it?

If Trump doesn't want to release his tax returns, why does he keep insisting that he does?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Perhaps not, but if Pelosi can persuade McConnell to say that he will allow testimony, then it would look pretty bad if he then does not.

And the Republicans wouldn't do something that would look bad?

 

[thaiboxerken]

And the Republicans wouldn't do something that would look bad?

Right, Mitch stopped caring about looking bad since before Obama became president and he's only gotten more shameless.

 

[smartcooky]

^ This.

The US is discovering (I hope!) that the prior operation of government in an environment of observance of norms without sufficient specificity in the rules allows unscrupulous individuals like Mitch to hijack the process. Until this sorry state of affairs is subject to redress, democracy hangs in the balance.

The United States of America is a relatively young country, less than 250 years old. Most other countries in the world have long realised that a government based on a system which politicians feel duty-bound to follow the rules and act in an honourable manner, in the first instance, requires that those politicians be honourable.

I think Americans might be just waking up and becoming dimly aware that their system has been wholly unprepared for an unscrupulous, out-of-control law-breaking President and the bunch of like-minded people he has surrounded himself with. Trump is not the cause of what America has become, he is the result!

The USA is often called "a Nation of Laws, not of Men" (John Adams), but I think the Senate should take careful note, not of the words of their Founders, but of the words of American poet and author, Ambrose Bierce..

"A nation that will not enforce its laws has no claim to the respect and allegiance of its people."

 

[Belz...]

Well I don't see it that way. Yes there are people who won't change how they see this. But I am not so pessimistic as to believe no one is hearing the evidence and the more it gets air time, the more people are swayed, even if very slowly.

After a long time of Mueller revelations, indictments, and now the impeachment hearings, it hasn't swayed any substantial part of the US public. What makes you think that it's going to happen despite these observations?

 

[Belz...]

the logic of an argument doesn’t hinge on the size of the thing in question.

Which, if you bothered to read my posts, you'd know isn't what I said.

 

[Minoosh]

If Trump doesn't want to release his tax returns, why does he keep insisting that he does?

Well, that's a question I hope his more sane supporters start asking themselves. I'd like to put that exact question on a billboard, starting now, JAQ.

In the context of this thread, my original question was aimed at certain people who think Pelosi's is only hurting the Democrats. That includes you. So ... If this is a big win for Trump, why is he complaining?

 

[JoeMorgue]

In the context of this thread, my original question was aimed at certain people who think Pelosi's is only hurting the Democrats. That includes you. So ... If this is a big win for Trump, why is he complaining?

He's not complaining, he's trolling. There's a difference.

Trump can never be content anymore then he can ever be not doing the next thing that is going to tweak the Democrats.

What Trump is doing, successfully as always, is in making sure we never focus on anything for long.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If this is a big win for Trump, why is he complaining?

The question you should be asking yourself is whether we can believe that something is true just because Trump says it is.

 

[Marcus]

??? A deposition consists of answering questions from both attorneys.

Actually just opposing counsel, but you're right, I shouldn't have put it that way. What I meant is that allowing witnesses to testify in this manner is a way of avoiding appearing in front of the Senate and facing grilling, grandstanding, and assorted opportunities for sound bites for the Senators.

 

[varwoche]

Actually just opposing counsel, but you're right, I shouldn't have put it that way. What I meant is that allowing witnesses to testify in this manner is a way of avoiding appearing in front of the Senate and facing grilling, grandstanding, and assorted opportunities for sound bites for the Senators.

According to the rules, when live witnesses appear, senators submit questions in writing and the questions are asked by the Chief Justice. That would tend to cut down on grandstanding.