• 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 3

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
What he said was not ambiguous. And if you don't think someone on Trump's team would tell so blatant a lie, then you haven't been paying attention.

Incidentally, have you heard of "the Big Lie"? It's a propaganda technique first identified and named by Hitler in Mein Kampf. The theory is that it's better to tell big, outrageous lies than small ones because everyday people tell small lies themselves all the time, but they wouldn't have the audacity to tell one that's too large so they will believe a bigger lie because they won't believe that someone else could be so audacious.

That seems to be what you're saying here. Dershowitz couldn't possibly knowingly tell a lie so big, so it must instead have been an honest mistake. Well, he could. The people in Trump's orbit do it all the time. And it works.
Click to expand...

Alas, on further review, I think you are probably right. He didn't seem to back away from it in any sense during his other answers.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
How do you interpret it?
Click to expand...

I am the Scum said that Alexander was "totally ok" with what Trump did.


In the statement, Senator Alexander explicitly said that the actions were not totally ok. He called them "inappropriate", but that they did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. He noted that the election starts Monday.

This really illustrates exactly what I feared with impeachment. People, including I am the Scum, and many others here, and many in the media and many millions more out there in the real world are doing exactly the same thing. They are dividing the country into two camps. Either you want the president impeached, or you are "totally ok" with what he did.

That division works, but not in the way it was intended. Impeachment supporters will say that you are either an impeachment supporter or a Trump supporter. Either you support impeachment, or you support "election rigging". That's what I am the Scum did, and that's what a lot of people, here and elsewhere, have done.

Ok. So, every voter hears that, but an awful lot of them know that they are not impeachment supporters, so what are they? Once you label them as Trump supporters, and you make sure that they understand that you have utter and complete contempt for every Trump supporter, what do you expect them to do?
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
Plenty of cynicism about Collins’ motives. Well justified throughout this whole process getting re-elected has been discussed as the prime motivation for how senators on both sides vote. Agree with opinions that in this context her position was likely party sanctioned.
Click to expand...

My thought is that McConnell has the votes he needs without her, therefore she can make a token vote because she's already vulnerable after Kavanaugh.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The message is simple - Trump acted in a corrupt manner and obstructed justice and needs to be removed...
Click to expand...

And again, why in heaven’s name didn’t the Dems include several obstruction counts as outlined in Mueller? They had a far simpler message than the Ukraine mess. He fired people, made false statements and asked staff to make false statements, all with the intent of obstructing investigations. What would it have cost them to add those?
 
Meadmaker said:
I am the Scum said that Alexander was "totally ok" with what Trump did.


In the statement, Senator Alexander explicitly said that the actions were not totally ok. He called them "inappropriate", but that they did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. He noted that the election starts Monday.
Click to expand...

Then you believe that the statement is 100% truthful, and that Alexander is just honestly mistaken about Trump's actions not being impeachable despite the legal consensus that it is?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
And again, why in heaven’s name didn’t the Dems include several obstruction counts as outlined in Mueller? They had a far simpler message than the Ukraine mess. He fired people, made false statements and asked staff to make false statements, all with the intent of obstructing investigations. What would it have cost them to add those?
Click to expand...

I don't think they should have added those, because they would have muddied the issue by making the impeachment about two separate events, and would raise the questions of why they waited. No, I think they should have impeached on them when the Mueller report was released.

Then, perhaps they didn't think that they would be able to access the grand jury material that they still to this day have not been allowed to access, and that therefore they wouldn't be able to make a strong enough case.

Either way, I think they're probably all operating under one key assumption - that this is the one go at this. Any subsequent impeachments can be dismissed as a "witch hunt", and they can probably bring more of the public along for the ride on that one.

Since this one was almost certainly going to end in acquittal, I believe that the plan has always been to force the Republicans into the corner, to make them do things like deny the witnesses and argue that the president is above the law, and hope that enough voters take notice.
 
It would make it so easy for GOP senators if Mitch announced that, should Trump not be convicted, he would still be censured.
The fact that this is unthinkable is the reason why the only moral choice is to convict him.
 
As a soon-to-be Tennessee resident*, I just emailed Alexander and expressed my disgust with his decision.

For all the good it will do.



*OK, so I fibbed a bit in my email and said I was a Tennessee resident. So sue me!
 
Sideroxylon said:
Plenty of cynicism about Collins’ motives. Well justified throughout this whole process getting re-elected has been discussed as the prime motivation for how senators on both sides vote. Agree with opinions that in this context her position was likely party sanctioned.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why the removal trial should have been conducted by an independent law enforcement agency and not elected officials.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
And again, why in heaven’s name didn’t the Dems include several obstruction counts as outlined in Mueller? They had a far simpler message than the Ukraine mess. He fired people, made false statements and asked staff to make false statements, all with the intent of obstructing investigations. What would it have cost them to add those?
Click to expand...

Old News Syndrome at work.
 
Ugh!

Of course, it is not official yet, but it sure looks like Trump will dodge yet another legal sanction.

That stupid, idiotic, liar has gotten into so much legal trouble over the years, and yet he somehow constantly manages to skirt by any real problems with the legal system.
 
Meadmaker said:
Ok. So, every voter hears that, but an awful lot of them know that they are not impeachment supporters, so what are they? Once you label them as Trump supporters, and you make sure that they understand that you have utter and complete contempt for every Trump supporter, what do you expect them to do?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I don't make decisions out of spite and I care about what people I respect think of my behavior. So I don't know what someone labeled a trump supporter would do.
 
Belz... said:
Explain it to me.
Click to expand...

In one version, the senator allows egregious crimes to be committed with his approval.

In the other version, the senator allows egregious crimes to be committed with his approval, but he feels a tiny bit guilty about it.
 
Crossbow said:
Ugh!

Of course, it is not official yet, but it sure looks like Trump will dodge yet another legal sanction.

That stupid, idiotic, liar has gotten into so much legal trouble over the years, and yet he somehow constantly manages to skirt by any real problems with the legal system.
Click to expand...

Please be Courteous, your talking about someone without the mental capacity to understand holes, litterally he couldn't understand holes in paper punch cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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