• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
Sorry.

"Orange man bad and the Democrats are being totally effective in dealing with him."

Everyone go around the room and agree.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can start your own thread and call it "Strawmen by JoeMorgue" and argue all you like with all the statements you imagine other people might make, but didn't.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Sure.

Q: Orange man bad? A: 100% agree.

Q: Democrats totally effective...blah blah blah? A: Dunno. How can you tell when the game is only half over?
Click to expand...

I am confident that Trump will be evicted from office no later than January 20, 2025.


I wish I was absolutely certain, but I'm very confident.
 
DetectedMotion said:
But they got the majority of the national vote, where in any other electoral nation is a win, only to lose the electoral college vote.
It's hard to call that not smart, it just didn't work out in the Dems favor.
Click to expand...

Dems couldn't overcome Republicans cheating the system. I don't know if that could be called "not smart". Apparently, to Republicans, if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying.
 
Meadmaker said:
I went and listened to some of the testimony, and read articles at the time, and it's interesting that the spin at the time is quite different.

As for what he actually said, he was, in my opinion, prevaricating. He had said that the aid was contingent on the investigation, and that everyone was "in the loop" about that, but as he realized the implications of that, he was saying, "Well.....uhhhh…..it wasn't really.....because ….uhhh….there didn't even have to actually be an investigation. All they had to do was announce one and....uhhhh...yeah....That's the ticket." (paraphrased)



And what's with "up to Trump to......" Do you not get this? It is "up to Trump" to do what public opinion dictates, assuming he wants to keep his job until November and then for another four years, the requirements for which might be different.
Click to expand...

I thought Trump was going to be on Trial in the Senate, not the Court of Public Opinion. Are you making a legal or populist argument here?

And just for reference, more than half of the polled voters think he should be removed.

And Trump will be gone no later than 2023 when the Senate will flip.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I thought Trump was going to be on Trial in the Senate, not the Court of Public Opinion. Are you making a legal or populist argument here?

And just for reference, more than half of the polled voters think he should be removed.

And Trump will be gone no later than 2023 when the Senate will flip.
Click to expand...

Technically, the trial will be in the Senate, but we all know how that one is going to turn out. The only thing that could change that would be public pressure on Republican senators, but of course that pressure would have to come from voters who would be expected to vote Republican.

And even if the Senate flips in 2023, you have to get a 2/3 majority. There would have to be some mighty big flipping going on. Flipping 3 or 4 seats won't do it. The only way that big of a flip could happen would be, once again, public pressure.

This is all about appearances, public opinion, and the effect on the upcoming elections.
 
Meadmaker said:
That completely misses the point. It has nothing to do with "whataboutism".



Trump will allege that there was strong reason to believe that Joe and Hunter Biden were engaged in corrupt acts that involved US government funds. That's a pretty serious issue, isn't it? Never mind that it's all part of Trump's twisted bizarre mind in which Trump is the center of the universe and everyone who opposes Trump is automatically a bad person doing corrupt things.



If that were true, if there really was reason to believe that the Biden family was part of Ukranian corruption, then everything Trump did would be perfectly reasonable.



So, if he is on trial for corruptly messing with US foreign policy, all Trump has to do is show that his motives were pure, and one way to do that is to show that there was reason to believe that Joe Biden's motive for demanding the dismissal of the Ukranian prosecutor was as part of a coverup of Burisma's corrupt practices.



Do I actually believe that's true? i.e. Did Trump really believe that Biden was corrupt? Yes, I do believe that. Let me emphasize something. I don't believe that Biden was corrupt. I do believe that Trump believed it. The man is a friggin lunatic, and that should have been obvious to everyone as soon as he started talking about his inauguration crowds and his "landslide" victory. Even if they didn't realize it before, that should have been a wake up call to everyone that this man is a lunatic.



But, it wasn't, and still isn't. Sad, but true. So, we are left playing politics. You want witnesses? Well, then, Trump's team gets to call witnesses, too, and their defense rests on Donald Trump's belief that the Bidens were behaving suspiciously and that there ought to be an investigation into their behavior. Surely their own testimony about that behavior is relevant. And if Biden won't testify, that gets awkward when you are saying that Trump's facilitation of non-testifying is a "high crime or misdemeanor".



In reality, I have no idea what will happen if it gets to that point. Who will even make the decision about whether Biden testifies? Is it Roberts? Is it the majority of the Senate? It's one of those, and I don't know what will happen. Presumably, if it's the Senate majority, it will go the GOP way, but perhaps not. The final verdict is not in doubt, because 2/3 is needed to convict, but Romney, Murkowski, or Collins could defect on some rules questions.
Click to expand...
There was strong evidence the Biden's were part of a plan to get Ukraine off cheap Russian gas. Putin had massive leverage over Ukraine because he could, and did, cut Ukraine off from the gas they were totally reliant on whenever they did something that didn't please him. The whole corruption angle is giant lie.
 
a_unique_person said:
There was strong evidence the Biden's were part of a plan to get Ukraine off cheap Russian gas. Putin had massive leverage over Ukraine because he could, and did, cut Ukraine off from the gas they were totally reliant on whenever they did something that didn't please him. The whole corruption angle is giant lie.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is why people insist on arguing facts that aren't relevant when responding to a post.

Is Joe Biden corrupt? Not that I'm aware of. Is Hunter Biden corrupt? Not that I'm aware of. Do either of those questions matter to the post to which you were responding? No. I even called out, within that post, in a sentence that started with "Let me emphasize something...." that I didn't think they were corrupt.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Technically, the trial will be in the Senate, but we all know how that one is going to turn out. The only thing that could change that would be public pressure on Republican senators, but of course that pressure would have to come from voters who would be expected to vote Republican.

And even if the Senate flips in 2023, you have to get a 2/3 majority. There would have to be some mighty big flipping going on. Flipping 3 or 4 seats won't do it. The only way that big of a flip could happen would be, once again, public pressure.

This is all about appearances, public opinion, and the effect on the upcoming elections.
Click to expand...

No, it's all about spin.
Trump has admitted to, produced evidence for and we had witnesses testify to high crimes and misdemeanors that would have gotten every other President Impeached.
There is obviously no amount of evidence that will convince more than half the Trump/GOP base, which is what matters to Republicans.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
You are kidding, right?
The only official First-hand witness willing to testify, and you think that is insufficient evidence?

The fact that "only announcement, no actual investigation" has entered the House Record means that it is now up to Trump to bring counter-evidence from other witnesses, or Sondland's testimony stands as the best evidence available.

Don't you realize that you are just moving the goalpost?
Click to expand...
This is a very good counter-argument. I keep bringing up the same point, that Team Trump has offered no on-the-record evidence so the sworn testimony stands as the best available evidence.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is the reason McConnell is so anxious to sweep it all under the rug with no trial.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that all GOP senators will sign onto sweeping it under the rug, even if they favor summary acquittal. I wonder if Graham and McConnell have overplayed their hand. I can imagine some daylight between leadership and the rank and file on this issue.
 
Republicans stone walled for a year to prevent Obama appointing a supreme Court judge. Maybe Pelosi is taking a leaf from their playbook.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom