Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

This is the Democratic party:

They're too afraid to impeach because they think if they are successful and Trump loses people will say mean things about them. These people are worthless.

That sounds implausible. Who is Jeff Hauser and why should I believe him? Why doesn't he name the Democrats who have expressed that sentiment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Because the quote isn't from him, it's from Politico's newsletter.

I'm going to need names because I'm not buying that anyone is afraid of negative consequences of Donald Fucking Trump losing the election. Blamed for a political hit job by whom? Trump? Trump's base? The GOP? Big fucking deal. The Clintons say hi. Let the losers cry in their beer. What else are they going to do?

The only fear about impeachment I've heard any Dem express is that it will make Trump seem sympathetic and it might help him win an election he'd otherwise lose. That's the only rational argument against it. 

Edited by WhatTheBuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

That hearing was worth it just for the one sound bite. 

So what else do the Dems have brewing in the house?

- tax returns

- trump finances, deutsche bank

- the DNI whistleblower

- McGahn, Flynn, Cohen ??

allofit.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A legit reason that Congress (House Ds) doesn't go balls to the wall on subpoenas and other enforcement matters is that the extent of those powers is not well defined.  Taking something to court, or pushing it to a level where someone else takes it to court (arrest by Sergeant-At-Arms and habeas corpus) risks clarifying and placing limitations on those powers as much or more than it may permit comeuppance for certain witnesses and their puppetmasters.

When the investigative and enforcement powers are blurry, it makes for a lot of bluster, which Congress has always loved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I don't think a committee can do that. Only Congress can.

 

So what? The House is in session and the last I checked, your bff Pelosi is still in charge of setting the agenda. Go hold a vote. It's not like it's any surprise that Lewandowski lied, evaded questions and falsely claimed executive privilege. Every witness has run the same script. These assholes are going to keep doing it until there are actual consequences. 

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A legit reason that Congress (House Ds) doesn't go balls to the wall on subpoenas and other enforcement matters is that the extent of those powers is not well defined.  Taking something to court, or pushing it to a level where someone else takes it to court (arrest by Sergeant-At-Arms and habeas corpus) risks clarifying and placing limitations on those powers as much or more than it may permit comeuppance for certain witnesses and their puppetmasters.

When the investigative and enforcement powers are blurry, it makes for a lot of bluster, which Congress has always loved. 

 

I get what you are saying here, but Democrats face the reality of needing to test whether the courts will uphold their actions, rather than getting steam rolled while wondering if the courts would enforce X, Y and Z. Inherent contempt has been upheld twice by the Supreme Court, granted it was in the 1920s and 1930s, but there is still strong precedent on this. They can keep passing the ball around the perimeter looking for a better shot, but the shot clock is winding down on them. 

Lewandowski would have been a great person to start enforcing this on, because he is an admitted liar, a hostile and combative witness and has ZERO claim to executive privilege, because he never served in any part of the executive branch. 

Quote

Congress’s inherent contempt power is not specifically granted by the Constitution, but is considered necessary to investigate and legislate effectively. The validity of the inherent contempt power was upheld in the early Supreme Court decision in Anderson v. Dunn and reiterated in McGrain v. Daugherty. Under the inherent contempt power the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned or detained in the Capitol or perhaps elsewhere.79The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive80 or coercive.81 Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least by the House, beyond the end of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. 

 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34097

 

 

Edited by suddenly shaggy
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, suddenly shaggy said:

So what? The House is in session and the last I checked, your bff Pelosi is still in charge of setting the agenda. Go hold a vote. It's not like it's any surprise that Lewandowski lied, evaded questions and falsely claimed executive privilege. Every witness has run the same script. These assholes are going to keep doing it until there are actual consequences. 

 

I get what you are saying here, but Democrats face the reality of needing to test whether the courts will uphold their actions, rather than getting steam rolled while wondering if the courts would enforce X, Y and Z. Inherent contempt has been upheld twice by the Supreme Court, granted it was in the 1920s and 1930s, but there is still strong precedent on this. They can keep passing the ball around the perimeter looking for a better shot, but the shot clock is winding down on them. 

Lewandowski would have been a great person to start enforcing this on, because he is an admitted liar, a hostile and combative witness and has ZERO claim to executive privilege, because he never served in any part of the executive branch. 

Fucking this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...