House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
At one point in the Cabinet meeting he referred to a trade agreement with North Korea.

ETA: Kinda off topic I know
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
From the book: Mattis wanted Theranos devices on the field, informing treatment of troops in realtime. This was routed to the Army's office of regulatory compliance. The compliance officer raised ethical concerns about Theranos' regulatory strategy, which he shared with the FDA. The FDA also found the strategy concerning. Mattis knew this. Instead of prompting him to take a closer look at the company, it prompted him to summon the Army officer and make him explain himself.

The upshot of that meeting was that Mattis agreed that Theranos devices didn't meet regulations necessary to actually be used on troops in the field. Instead, it was proposed that Theranos do a more limited trial, using anonymized blood samples. While this wouldn't save lives, it would at least prove Theranos' capability to do accurate blood tests on small samples. Theranos didn't have this capability, and never followed through with the trial.

Even though Mattis supposedly wanted this tech in the field with his troops, he apparently did not notice that the company whose board he joined never actually made any real attempt to get there.

And it's not so much about what Mattis knew and when. It's about the fiduciary responsibility of a board of directors to direct the company. There were things he should have known, but didn't. Like the fact that Theranos never actually did any kind of calibrating study, where their results were compared to known-good results. The revenue projections they were showing the board were based on partnership contracts that were never produced when requested by board members. Etc.

There's a lot of basic stuff that Theranos was doing wrong, that should have been noticeable to anyone who asked even simple questions. Just the failure to produce definitive documents when requested by board members should have been enough. Assuming Mattis were actually interested in that.
Click to expand...

So he got taken in by a fraud (he did lose money on the whole thing) just like a lot of other people. That's why you soured on him? Really? It's not because he broke ranks with (and mocked) the filthy Russian whore you're so enamored of? That's not it?
 
theprestige said:
Is he calling the constitution phony, or is he alleging that the complaint against him is pseudo constitutional and phony?

It seems like your rebuttal depends on begging the question.
Click to expand...

Why would you think this? He's demonstrated his stupidity and dishonesty so many times. He said, "You people with this phony Emoluments Clause." That's all there is to it. No need to look for deeper meanings. It's what he said and if he doesn't like it, the stupid bitch should learn his place and keep his mouth shut.

Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows he's not a loyal American. Why is it so hard for you to think he thinks a part of the Constitution isn't real? I understand how you need to find ways to tell yourself you're still a loyal American in spite of your vote for a Russian whore.
 
theprestige said:
<snip>

And it's not so much about what Mattis knew and when. It's about the fiduciary responsibility of a board of directors to direct the company. There were things he should have known, but didn't.

<snip>
Click to expand...


I thought boards of directors were nothing but sinecures for the rich and powerful and their offspring, with the sole purpose of enabling them to skim yet more wealth off the top at the expense of hapless mutual funds and pension investments.

Maybe Hunter wasn't such a bad guy after all?
 
So it looks like at least some Republicans are still behind Trump on the whole impeachment thing...

From: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...aring-to-break-up-trump-impeachment-testimony
House Republicans stormed a closed-door hearing Wednesday morning to protest Democrats' impeachment inquiry, breaking up the deposition of a top Defense Department who was testifying about President Trump's dealings with Ukraine.
...
Some of Republicans who barged into the hearing room were in possession of cellphones, a violation of the rules governing the so-called sensitive compartmented information facility.

Of course, everyone here should recognize that while the hearings aren't necessarily public, the Republicans do have representation on the committees performing the inquiry. This is just an attempt at a distraction.

And for the party that complained about Hillary's emails, breaking security protocols by bringing cell phones into a room where they should not be is a little bit hypocritical.
 
I kind of wish the media, at least the headlines and bylines, would make more distinction between "Impeachment" and "Conviction through Impeachment."

I keep reading things like "Impeachment grows more likely" and "Inner circle tells Trump impeachment is inevitable" and aren't clear if they are talking the House starting Impeachment Proceedings (which is gonna happen... whenever) and Trump being impeached in the way the masses think of the term; being removed from office which isn't gonna happen.
 
Segnosaur said:
So it looks like at least some Republicans are still behind Trump on the whole impeachment thing...

From: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...aring-to-break-up-trump-impeachment-testimony
House Republicans stormed a closed-door hearing Wednesday morning to protest Democrats' impeachment inquiry, breaking up the deposition of a top Defense Department who was testifying about President Trump's dealings with Ukraine.
...
Some of Republicans who barged into the hearing room were in possession of cellphones, a violation of the rules governing the so-called sensitive compartmented information facility.

Of course, everyone here should recognize that while the hearings aren't necessarily public, the Republicans do have representation on the committees performing the inquiry. This is just an attempt at a distraction.

And for the party that complained about Hillary's emails, breaking security protocols by bringing cell phones into a room where they should not be is a little bit hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Maybe they were taking a leaf from the book of their white supremacist base and were livestreaming their shenanigans?
 
From: https://www.thedailybeast.com/forme...w-whitaker-says-abuse-of-power-is-not-a-crime
...former acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker defended the president by claiming “abuse of power is not a crime.”...
Whitaker stated. “What evidence of a crime do you have? So the Constitution—abuse of power is not a crime.”

So I guess we can end the impeachment proceedings.

Seriously, that seems almost as bad as Mulvaney's "Trump is still in the hospitality business" or Giuliani's "Trump didn't do it but he did" as far as making Trump look bad.
 
Stacyhs said:
Theprestige, do you think Trump holding the G7 Summit at his Doral property would have been violating the Emoluments Clause?
Click to expand...

I think it's debatable. Meadmaker started a thread to debate that and related legal questions recently, but it fell apart almost instantly due to lack of enthusiasm for actually debating such questions.

Feel free to head back over to that thread, if you find you're now enthusiastic about it. I won't debate it here, though.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I kind of wish the media, at least the headlines and bylines, would make more distinction between "Impeachment" and "Conviction through Impeachment."

I keep reading things like "Impeachment grows more likely" and "Inner circle tells Trump impeachment is inevitable" and aren't clear if they are talking the House starting Impeachment Proceedings (which is gonna happen... whenever) and Trump being impeached in the way the masses think of the term; being removed from office which isn't gonna happen.
Click to expand...

I agree with an addition.

There is currently an Impeachment inquiry going on. This is not Impeachment. But the Republicans are all in a twist because it's not in public. How many inquiries and/or investigations are conducted in public?
 
theprestige said:
I think it's debatable. Meadmaker started a thread to debate that and related legal questions recently, but it fell apart almost instantly due to lack of enthusiasm for actually debating such questions.

Feel free to head back over to that thread, if you find you're now enthusiastic about it. I won't debate it here, though.
Click to expand...

It's ******* debatable? Just how far backwards are you prepared to bend? You were asked a direct question and you danced around it. Answer the question. Stand for something.
 
Last edited:
slyjoe said:
I agree with an addition.

There is currently an Impeachment inquiry going on. This is not Impeachment. But the Republicans are all in a twist because it's not in public. How many inquiries and/or investigations are conducted in public?
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it. It's in the same folder as the "we can't confirm a SCOTUS justice in a President's final year in office!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom