• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
You don't know that. :rolleyes:

*Very slowly* Yes, that's why I said "doubt" and "think."

If the "OMG Like you can tell the future!" is going to be the standard retort to every political possibility people don't want to consider, save it for when people make actual predictions.
 
*Very slowly* Yes, that's why I said "doubt" and "think."

If the "OMG Like you can tell the future!" is going to be the standard retort to every political possibility people don't want to consider, save it for when people make actual predictions.

Well let me rephrase that then, I think that is an absurd assessment and suggests you were following the news (aka reporter's black and white statements) instead of the actual nuanced words Pelosi said.
 
Oh, ok. Agree on Conway then, don't know about the gaslighting but she was really cranking up the spin machine when she claimed Pelosi was succumbing to pressure from men.
She's a classic troll. I wouldn't be surprised if she and her husband have cooked up their "differences" between them and are laughing all the way to the bank.
 
Thanks PW for the links and everyone for the info on Hunter B.



There was a meme on this upthread but here are some links on it:

Kellyanne Conway is trying to insert the talking point, Pelosi was coerced by the men in her caucus.

Boston Globe: Kellyanne Conway Says Pelosi Succumbed to Pressure from Men on Impeachment

HuffPo words it differently: Kellyanne Conway Lobs Sexist Dig At Nancy Pelosi, Says She Caved To Men On Impeachment


I wonder how long it took Conway to come up with that one?

Conway, like the rest of the Great Right Wing Noise Machine, is rather simple-minded. I'm quite sure she sees this as a diabolical way to split the male and female anti-Trump forces. Get Pelosi all squirmy about being accused of being subservient to males in the party and she'll turn on them. Or she'll show her true Femi-Nazis colors and alienate two swing-district voters in Nevada, thereby winning the election for Trump.

Or sumfin'.

Alternate theory: Kelly-Ann is just a miserable piece of work and has run out of "Look, Squirrel!" comments for the press.
 
She's a classic troll. I wouldn't be surprised if she and her husband have cooked up their "differences" between them and are laughing all the way to the bank.

Wouldn't that make her husband a classic troll, too? Wouldn't that give his positions no more validity than hers?


Only if you assume that conservatives and Trump Zombies can't be trolled by using facts and evidence as a response to their blathering.

History suggests that they can be. Rather easily, it turns out.
 
Every good career advancement plan includes a retirement strategy. She'll want to wrap up her career clean, with her reputation, her legacy, and her relationships all intact.

---


ETA: I found this article (sorry about the source, feel free to find a better one if you like):

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...has-agreed-to-step-down-by-2022-to-secure-the

She's stepping down as Speaker in 2022. She's not actually ending her political career. According to this article, it actually looks like stepping down as speaker is in fact a career move. The House Democrats would like a younger face in that role. So they've agreed to re-elect her as Speaker in this term, in exchange for her agreeing to go back to being a regular Rep after that. Career-wise, this is a lot more savvy than digging in her heels and trying to hang onto the office of Speaker, and antagonizing her party in the process.

Ooh! Going back to standard Rep! What a career advancement move!

Come on, theprestige, stop it. You made a claim; it was ridiculous. Just admit it and move on.
 
Well, at the moment there is just the possibility that he might be impeached and rather long odds that he would actually be ever removed from office. And still we already are very close to actual incitement to violence. If he really would one day be cornered, bloody hell: an amoral rat with millions of blind low information followers... This might get very ugly.
 
CSPAN had a panel from the Brookings Institute on this morning. It is so worth the hour and a half or take a look through the transcript.

Brookings Institution Forum on Impeachment Inquiry

23 minutes in the question is, of all the things Trump has done, upon which do you make the charges. Sorry about the wall of text and all caps on top of it. You can just go to that point in the tape and listen.
I THINK THIS IS REALLY A CRITICAL QUESTION. IT'S IMPORTANT THE HOUSE ANCHORS ITS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A GRAVE AND SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. IT NEEDS TO BE REALLY DISCIPLINED. IMPEACHMENT IS AN AIRING OF GRIEVANCES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, NOT A MECHANISM TO ACHIEVE THINGS WERE YOU CANNOT BUILD A LEGISLATIVE COALITION. IS A VERY, VERY SERIOUS AND UNIQUE REMEDY IN CASES OF SERIOUS ABUSE. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY MIGHT FALL WITH IN THOSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, WE ARE SEEING A HUGE TREND RIGHT NOW OF PEOPLE MOVING FORWARD ON THIS NARROW UKRAINE CALL ALL THE WAY TO PEOPLE SAYING YOU SHOULD INCLUDE FAMILY SEPARATION EVERYTHING WE HAVE SEEN THE PRESIDENT DO. WHATEVER WE THINK ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE CODES OF IMPEACHMENT, THINK ABOUT TWO THINGS. YOU WANT UNAMBIGUOUSLY IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT AND YOU WANT UNAMBIGUOUSLY STRONG HABITS. WE HAVE SOME AREAS IN WHICH THERE IS VERY STRONG EVIDENCE BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR IT'S IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT. EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING. THE STORMY DANIELS PAYMENTS, PRE-PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT THAT IMPLICATES CAMPAIGN-FINANCE LAW. WE HAVE A CLEAR EVIDENTIARY RECORD BUT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PRE-PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT WOULD FALL WITHIN THAT STARTS TO BECOME MORE DIFFICULT. THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE'S VIOLATION, VERY SERIOUS QUESTIONS, SOME OPEN QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, CONGRESS IS NOT YET TAKEN STEPS TO MAKE THE LAWS. GENUINE POLICY DIFFERENCES, EVEN THINGS WE MIGHT FIND PERSONALLY ABHORRENT LIKE FAMILY SEPARATION WHICH IS A POLICY DISAGREEMENT, YOU DON'T GET TO IMPEACH FOR THAT. THERE IS A DIFFERENT CATEGORY WHICH IS UNSATISFYING TO LEAVE THAT ON THE TABLE. THERE'S ANOTHER CATEGORY OF PLAINLY IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT IN WHICH THE EVIDENCE IS NOT QUITE STRONG ENOUGH. TO PRESIDENT REPORTEDLY HAS OFFERED PEOPLE PARDONS IN EXCHANGE FOR VIOLATING THE LAW IN THE CONTEXT OF BORDER SECURITY. UNAMBIGUOUSLY IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT, THE RECORD IS MURKY, MAYBE HE WAS KIDDING OR MAYBE HE DIDN'T SAY IT. WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES, PUTTING THAT STUFF ASIDE, WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH? WE THINK ABOUT ON THEM VIGOROUSLY IMPEACHABLE AND STRONG EVIDENCE. THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS A LOT. [LAUGHTER] THE FIRST ONE IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THIS IS THE BIG QUESTION THAT REMAINS AFTER THE MUELLER REPORT. NOT EVERY EPISODE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS RESTRUNG BUT THERE ARE TWO OR THREE THAT ARE UNAMBIGUOUSLY -- THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS -- WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE THE PRESIDENT POTENTIALLY IMPEACH FOR THAT. ABUSE OF FOREIGN POLICY POWERS ARE USING FOREIGN POLICY POWERS FOR PERSONAL GAIN, THAT'S AN ABUSE. INVITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS IS AN ABUSE. THE VIOLATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE OR TARGETING POLITICAL OPPONENTS FOR INVESTIGATIONS, NOT JUST IN A FOREIGN CONTEXT BUT ALSO THINGS LIKE DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE HILLARY CLINTON'S EMAILS. THAT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE USE OF U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, THE REFUSAL TO REPLY TO SUBPOENAS, THE FRIVOLOUS ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OVER PEOPLE LIKE COREY LEWANDOWSKI COMETH THAT IS OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS AND ITS FUNCTION. LAST CATEGORY IS LIES TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. THIS IS SOMETHING WE SAW IN THE DRAFT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR RICHARD NIXON AND AGAINST BILL CLINTON AS WELL, LYING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS NOT A CRIME. IT IS IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT AND IT DOES ERODE BASIC DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY. THERE IS A VERY LONG, VERY STRONG RECORD THAT SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT.

That was followed with a discussion of the pros and cons of including many or few of these crimes in the Articles of Impeachment.


Backing up a bit, at minute 15 Trump's connections to Russia and Ukraine put all together are more shocking than when they were spread out over months. (Remember Donny Jr said Russia funds all their golf courses, then he denied it. And there are all those ties to oligarchs and possibly some evidence of money laundering.)
LET ME PUT A LITTLE MEAT ON THE OUTLINE THAT JOHN JUST GAVE. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THIS IS SO FAST AND SO SUDDEN OR SEEMS SO, IS THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMELS BACK. LET'S START AND 2016 IN APRIL. WE SEE THE FIRST ADS WHICH WE NOW KNOW WERE BACKED BY THE RUSSIANS COMING OUT OF ST. PETERSBURG. WE SEE THE FIRST ADS INTERFERING IN THE 2016 ELECTION. GET TO THE SUMMER OF 2016 AND THERE IS TO EVENTS THAT HAVE GOTTEN ATTENTION BUT NOT FOR THE RIGHT THING. THE FIRST EVENT IS THE FAMOUS PRESS CONFERENCE AT THE DORAL GOLF CLUB OR CANDIDATE TRUMP SAYS TO THE REPORTERS, IF THE RUSSIANS ARE LISTENING, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S IN HILLARY'S EMAILS. WHAT HAS BEEN FORGOTTEN ABOUT THAT PRESS CONFERENCE IS HE IS ALSO ASKED ABOUT RUSSIA AND THE UKRAINE. HE SAYS, YEAH, WE WILL BE LOOKING INTO THAT, INDICATING THAT HIS FOREIGN POLICY WITH RUSSIA AND THE UKRAINE IS NOT THE SAME AS HAS BEEN FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES. THE SECOND EVENT THAT GOES ON IN THE SUMMER IS EVERYBODY HEARD ABOUT THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING WITH THE RUSSIAN INTERMEDIARY. WE HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT AT THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION, TWO ITS BEFORE, THEY WROTE A PLATFORM. USUALLY, THESE PLATFORM MEETINGS, YOU CAN SEE VERY CLEARLY WHERE THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IS HAVING THEIR IMPACT. THE CHUM CAMPAIGN HAS NO INTEREST, NO INTEREST IN ANY OF THE PIECES OF THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM.THEY GET TO WRITE A TRADITIONAL REPUBLICAN PLATFORM WITH U.S. POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA, THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE. THIS IS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT. WE GO TO THE TRANSITION AND SURE ENOUGH, THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR HAS AN ILLEGAL MEETING WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR WHICH EVENTUALLY COST HIM HIS JOB IS ONLY IN THE JOB FOR A MONTH. HE FIRES COMEY AND THE NEXT DAY, HE MEETS WITH THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR. AND HE THROWS EVERYBODY OUT OF THE MEETING EXCEPT FOR THE RUSSIANS. WE ARE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT IS TELLING US SOMETHING AND I THINK FOR A LONG TIME, WE DIDN'T WANT TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON. THAN WE GET TO THE HELSINKI SUMMIT. TO HELSINKI SUMMIT, THE SUMMIT IS OUTRAGEOUS. YOU WANT A SUMMARY OF THAT, LOOK AT JOHN ALLEN'S PIECE ON THE BROOKINGS WEBSITE THAT HE WROTE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT. PEOPLE WITH FOREIGN POLICY BACKGROUND SAY WHAT ON EARTH IS HE DOING THERE? IN FACT, THE HELSINKI SUMMIT CAUSES THE LARGEST NUMBER OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO ATTACK THEIR PRESIDENT AS HAS EVER HAPPENED. WE'VE GOT A LOT IN PLAIN SIGHT. THEN COMES THIS NEWS OF THIS PHONE CALL. AND ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, YOU HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, ALL BRAND-NEW, THEY ARE WOMEN, FIVE OF THEM ARE VETERANS, TO OUR FORMER CIA ANALYSTS AND THIS JUST TIPS IT. ALL OF A SUDDEN, THIS IS NOT THE FAR LEFT SAYING IMPEACH THE GUY BECAUSE WE DISAGREE WITH HIM ON HEALTH CARE. ALL OF A SUDDEN, THE THIS HAS GOTTEN A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF SERIOUSNESS AND ONE THAT FRANKLY HAS BEEN BOTHERING PEOPLE FOR THREE YEARS. AND HERE WE ARE.
When you see those incidents together you have to wonder why the GOP is still supporting this guy.

Well some of them are in on it. They get lots of money from the NRA who in turn is getting it from Russia. There were hints they knew that when Paul Ryan told a group of them to shut up as they discussed one of their members, Dana Rohrabacher, looking like he was bought by the Russians.

That panel discussion was packed full of so much information I'm still reeling.
 
They subpoenaed all documents/notes he has related to the Ukraine. Not his testimony. His refusal would go against US v Nixon. A unanimous Supreme Court decision.
Yeah, if he testified he could claim lawyer/client privilege or just plead the fifth.
 
Yeah, if he testified he could claim lawyer/client privilege or just plead the fifth.

He can plead the fifth regarding his testimony, but neither attorney client privilege or the fifth cover his notes and/or the documents. And executive privilege wouldn't work because of US v Nixon. My bet is Rudy is looking at a contempt citation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom