impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[RomaVicta 29,955]

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

I don't think so. Brisket for many years was the voice of reason in this ragtag set of voices. 

You were an eloquent voice for the right back when that was something other than Trumpism. I'm genuinely surprised to see you condemning a process (impeachment) set out in the Constitution. I genuinely surprised to see you join the unprincipled for the sake of party loyalty. You've always struck me as pretty damn smart. 

A lot of smart people do support Trump either for self-gain or through self-deception. I'll guess, if you are the washpark from Hornfans, that you are of the latter. Wake up. Your country needs you.

[henrygandorf 29,194]

Just now, RomaVicta said:

You were an eloquent voice for the right back when that was something other than Trumpism. I'm genuinely surprised to see you condemning a process (impeachment) set out in the Constitution. I genuinely surprised to see you join the unprincipled for the sake of party loyalty. You've always struck me as pretty damn smart. 

but it's ok because he's a bernie bro now.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

3 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

Also from Federalist 65 (66 talks about the Senate two-thirds rule to convict)

Hamilton was smart enough to realize that impeachment would always be partisan, but thought enough of the impartiality of the Senate to give them the power to convict, so long as two-thirds of the Senate was on board and the Chief Justice was empowered to see over the proceedings.  He argued that it was tough to find any reasonable way to handle impeachments, but this system was reasonably sound and there were many other choices that were worse.  If he were alive today he would think we were all morons.

 

Hamilton is instructive as to why the Senate would hold the trial rather than the Supreme Court. Hamilton came up with a good compromise - the House investigates (the house is the most little d democratic institution we have), the Senate (again little d democratic) tries, and the VP gives up his seat as the President of the Senate to the Chief Justice to rule over the trial. A trial by the Supreme Court was seen as too anti-democratic, as the Justices are not elected.

Franklin is credited as the father of the Constitution's Impeachment Provision. 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,797]

3 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

That's not what he was doing and you fucking know it.  He was coercing a foreign government to actively interfere in our elections in the form of a bullshit investigation into Biden.  Quit lying. 

Look how eager Donald is to cooperate with the investigation in order to show that his goal can be reasonably stated as seeking to end the Ukraine's interference in our elections through their acts leading up to 2016. He provides documents and witnesses upon request and has been a calming figure during this misunderstanding. Lulz

[washparkhorn 9,939]

3 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Heh.  I'll concede we can't do this.

Thank you. We (collectively) got what we allowed when Hillary was matched up against Trump. The Hillary supporters cheering Donald on in the Republican Primary thought he would be easy for Hillary to beat. They got hoisted by their own petard. The next nominee will have a more difficult road because of Hillary's 2016 campaign. Trump is now the incumbent. And his followers see him as a man under siege by the corrupt Democratic Party. It would be foolish to say they are inaccurate. 

Seems to me we need to remove the plank from our eye. 

[wildcat09 29,360]

13 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Foreign LEO's aid our Nation regularly. See tax evasion and foreign bank accounts. 

If Trump's goal can be reasonably stated as seeking to end the Ukraine's interference in our elections through their acts leading up to 2016, I am not sure that an abuse of power. Presuming he had an objective predicate to assert a charge against the Ukraine for aiding the Clinton campaign, that is not an impeachable offense. This brouhaha started somewhere. Air it out and let the disinfectant of sunshine destroy the corrupt - no matter who is implicated - D or R. 

Your presumption is bullshit and you know it.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 minute ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Look how eager Donald is to cooperate with the investigation in order to show that his goal can be reasonably stated as seeking to end the Ukraine's interference in our elections through their acts leading up to 2016. He provides documents and witnesses upon request and has been a calming figure during this misunderstanding. Lulz

No lawyer or political operative would allow their client to cooperate with a partisan star chamber. The vote at least removes some of the taint from that inauspicous start. It should have begun with a vote so the investigators would have had subpoena power. And it should be bipartisan and open to the public. Since, after all, this is a government inquiry that could remove the properly elected President of the United States. 

[hayden_horn 11,364]

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

but it's ok because he's a bernie bro now.

he's always claimed to be left leaning all the while making excuses for republicans. it's kind of his bit.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Your presumption is bullshit and you know it.

Is it? Clinton hands are all over the Ukraine. Her "insurance policy" against a Trump Presidency is the basis for this exercise. Don't you think it is important to go to the beginning of the story?

[washparkhorn 9,939]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

he's always claimed to be left leaning all the while making excuses for republicans. it's kind of his bit.

In a democracy we call it an open mind. And a resignation that there is not a lick of difference between D's and R's. It is just a team affiliation. A circus that keeps people's minds penned into an artificial construct called political parties. A pox on both their houses. 

D v. R is lazy thinking. 

Edited October 31, 2019 by washparkhorn

[wildcat09 29,360]

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

Is it? Clinton hands are all over the Ukraine. Her "insurance policy" against a Trump Presidency is the basis for this exercise. Don't you think it is important to go to the beginning of the story?

Jesus man, you used to be so much better at this.  Of course, Trump doesn't give you much to work with.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

12 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

but it's ok because he's a bernie bro now.

Being a Sanders' Son is almost as alienating as being a MAGA. The Clintons and their cronies hate Sanders and his supporters. 

[RomaVicta 29,955]

26 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i've hesitantly thrown my lot into the democratic hat

Poor, poor bastard.

Welcome to the party, pal. Sadly, it's the best thing going at the moment.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Jesus man, you used to be so much better at this.  Of course, Trump doesn't give you much to work with.

Really? Clinton and her supporters did not build a dossier, which became the basis of this investigation? Without the dossier, do we have an issue with the Ukraine?

[Homercles 10,206]

6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

he's always claimed to be left leaning all the while making excuses for republicans. it's kind of his bit.

Most of them do.  I like to sort political reddit threads by ‘controversial’ just to see what the current RW talking points are...a large portion of them all start out with ‘I despise Trump’ or ‘I didn’t vote for Trump’...then immediately launch into defending the GOP and Trump.  It’s kind of their bit.  

Edited October 31, 2019 by Homercles

[Bama Chick 28,596]

This new old guy sucks.

[tantric superman 4,667]

4 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

And it should be bipartisan and open to the public.

As all trials are.

Unlike investigations. 

 

The idea that any investigation of Trump wouldn't be severely compromised and almost useless if it were "open" is fantasy of the highest order. 

If there were the remotest hint of lack of due process in any of this, there might be an issue.  There isn't. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

Poor, poor bastard.

Welcome to the party, pal. Sadly, it's the best thing going at the moment.

It is the only party going. The other one is locked in on Trump. 

 

I think we can all do better, and it starts with the Democratic nomination. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

Just now, Bama Chick said:

This new old guy sucks.

That's not what you said about me in 2016 when we both supported Bernie. Or are you a sock of that former poster?

[wildcat09 29,360]

Just now, tantric superman said:

As all trials are.

Unlike investigations. 

 

The idea that any investigation of Trump wouldn't be severely compromised and almost useless if it were "open" is fantasy of the highest order. 

If there were the remotest hint of lack of due process in any of this, there might be an issue.  There isn't. 

He knows, that's why he supports it.

[hayden_horn 11,364]

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

It is the only party going. The other one is locked in on Trump. 

 

I think we can all do better, and it starts with the Democratic nomination. 

and impeachment. because it's not the democrats that are tearing the country apart. it's donald fucking trump and the 40% of the country that support him, full stop.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

As all trials are.

Unlike investigations. 

 

The idea that any investigation of Trump wouldn't be severely compromised and almost useless if it were "open" is fantasy of the highest order. 

If there were the remotest hint of lack of due process in any of this, there might be an issue.  There isn't. 

I respectfully disagree - especially with Schiff's actions, which should be beyond reproach for a matter with so much significance. But at least we have a vote now and a proper basis for an investigation. Should have been that way from the outset - if we want reconciliation for the nation. 

[CowboyFred 1,151]

9 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

No lawyer or political operative would allow their client to cooperate with a partisan star chamber. The vote at least removes some of the taint from that inauspicous start. It should have begun with a vote so the investigators would have had subpoena power. And it should be bipartisan and open to the public. Since, after all, this is a government inquiry that could remove the properly elected President of the United States. 

That's not how it fucking works.  I don't get what those complaining about the "open to the public" aspect of the initial hearings are trying to accomplish by yelling this at the clouds nonstop other than pander to their base. (I guess I answered my own question there) 

 

you're not even trying to be a clever troll with semi-valid talking points.  troll on ignore.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

and impeachment. because it's not the democrats that are tearing the country apart. it's donald fucking trump and the 40% of the country that support him, full stop.

I trust we can do two things at once since impeachment will not result in conviction.

I think my original point was to request we pay attention to the election as well. We need everyone's input and enthusiasm. If we just let the rulers pick the nominee, we are lost - like we were in 2016. 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

13 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Since, after all, this is a government inquiry that could remove the properly elected President of the United States. 

government inquiries do not remove presidents.

this is where your jump in logic is horribly flawed.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 minute ago, CowboyFred said:

you're not even trying to be a clever troll with semi-valid talking points.  troll on ignore.

Afraid of discussion? Best to ignore me, please and thank you. There is too much going through the motions in political discourse these days. People are locked in news silos, which are rotting people's brains. 

Best wishes on your journey to enlightenment. Feel free to un-ignore me. 

[mdmost 43,014]

9 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Being a Sanders' Son is almost as alienating as being a MAGA. The Clintons and their cronies hate Sanders and his supporters. 

Because you're (Bernie Bros) typically disingenuous and full of shit? 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

government inquiries do not remove presidents.

this is where your jump in logic is horribly flawed.

Without the inquiry, we have no removal/impeachment. I am missing your argument. Isn't an inquiry a necessary prerequisite for removal? 

[wildcat09 29,360]

Washpark is not begging the question (the actual logical fallacy, not how it's commonly misused) because he has honest good faith disagreements about anything with us.  

[henrygandorf 29,194]

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

I think my original point was to request we pay attention to the election as well. We need everyone's input and enthusiasm. If we just let the rulers pick the nominee, we are lost - like we were in 2016. 

yeah, there are over a dozen threads containing thousands of posts showing how little attention we're paying to the election months before the primaries.  sheesh.

why do i have a sinking feeling we're about to hear a lot of "but the election..."?

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 minute ago, mdmost said:

Because you're (Bernie Bros) typically disingenuous and full of shit? 

Bernie Bros is sexist, by the way. 

But your opinion is noted and given the appropriate weight. 

[hayden_horn 11,364]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I trust we can do two things at once since impeachment will not result in conviction.

I think my original point was to request we pay attention to the election as well. We need everyone's input and enthusiasm. If we just let the rulers pick the nominee, we are lost - like we were in 2016. 

well, this is the impeachment thread, where we discuss, as one does, the impeachment of the president for being a crooked fuckstick.

we also pay attention to the election as well:

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,881]

this thread took a weird fucking turn. don't fall for the distractions. eyes on the prize.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Washpark is not begging the question (the actual logical fallacy, not how it's commonly misused) because he has honest good faith disagreements about anything with us.  

There are two sides to every story. Wisdom comes with understanding both sides of an argument. 

[tantric superman 4,667]

6 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I respectfully disagree - especially with Schiff's actions, which should be beyond reproach for a matter with so much significance. But at least we have a vote now and a proper basis for an investigation. Should have been that way from the outset - if we want reconciliation for the nation. 

Proper basis for an investigation is any credible complaint of improper, potentially impeachable conduct.  Period.  Republican attacks on the process are simply their way to put their party above the Constitution and the health of this nation.

[henrygandorf 29,194]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Without the inquiry, we have no removal/impeachment. I am missing your argument. Isn't an inquiry a necessary prerequisite for removal? 

is this the part where i show videos of republicans insisting that the only way to get accurate and helpful information is to first conduct the investigations in closed-door sessions?  i mean, it's hardly relevant.  some of the videos are nearly four years old.

[tantric superman 4,667]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

There are two sides to every story. Wisdom comes with understanding both sides of an argument. 

It does.  And then the Wisdom tells you that one side is vastly more full of shit.

 

[wildcat09 29,360]

Just now, mdmost said:

Because you're (Bernie Bros) typically disingenuous and full of shit? 

We're talking late 2008 or some time in 2009, but I remember Washpark really tut tutting talk about the growing populist threat that would result from allowing criminals on Wall Street to get away with destroying the global economy and the continued exacerbation of income inequality.  It seems he finally understands the danger.  If this really is the original Washpark, I'd guess that his pretending to be a bernie bro now is how he hopes to avoid the pitchforks but the disingenuous trolling is pretty clear evidence that he hasn't actually changed.

[wildcat09 29,360]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

There are two sides to every story. Wisdom comes with understanding both sides of an argument. 

[tantric superman 4,667]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

why do i have a sinking feeling we're about to hear a lot of "but the election..."?

Let the people decide (whether they are going to overcome election interference)!

[mdmost 43,014]

I mean he really had me going until the whole Trump was doing this to stave off Ukrainian influence in our elections...by trying to get Ukraine to interfere in next election. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

well, this is the impeachment thread, where we discuss, as one does, the impeachment of the president for being a crooked fuckstick.

we also pay attention to the election as well:

Thank you. Another longtime poster (back to Hornfans days) pointed me in the direction of the solid policy discussions. 

And as I said, there is no need to ignore impeachment. Prepare for the inevitable no-conviction (enthusiasm will be tested) and get up to speed with the policy differences. A nominee will be selected as the party's presumptive nominee. When that happens, it will take an Obama type candidate to overcome the presumption (as Obama did in 2008). Neoliberalism is the primary issue - whether to revive it or forge a new path ahead. Do not assume neoliberalism is good for this nation merely because Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama did not choose to change course. We are in a bind because we have pushed the "what happens after neoliberalism falters" issue into the backs of our minds. The powers that be like us in the dark. Time to wake up. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

It does.  And then the Wisdom tells you that one side is vastly more full of shit.

 

We still have to prove it, so understand the arguments. They are not made in a void. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Exhibit 1 - Anti-intellectualism. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

4 minutes ago, mdmost said:

I mean he really had me going until the whole Trump was doing this to stave off Ukrainian influence in our elections...by trying to get Ukraine to interfere in next election. 

I don't think he was trying to stave off interference by the Ukraine in the next elections. They have been frozen. They are being watched, as is Russia and other forces seen as hostile to this nation. His argument is about getting to the roots of Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election. The Ukraine is corrupt. Anyone doing business with Ukraine for political misdeeds is in a world of hurt. 

 

Remember Durham's investigation will leave some marks. One needs to prepare for them and accept the fact that some high profile individuals and institutions will be shown to have acted in bad faith. Some of these people will be those who you may respect. There were a lot of errors in 2016. Losing grip of the Presidency was a blow to the establishment on both sides of the aisle. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,114]

5 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Accusing the other team of doing what you are doing is a deliberate Orwellian strategy.   It takes the sting out of legitimate criticism.  “Oh you think WE are a cult?  What about that time YOU were a cult?”  

That strategy only works if your supporters are either cynical liars or idiots who don’t understand the basic concepts underlying the accusations.  Which is why it works for the GOP.

Which is why I was calling Tahoe full of shit for years before the rest of you.  He was going on about the socialism mantra selling well for Republicans and I told him they don't even know what socialism is and his response was "exactly!"  Fucker didn't care as long as his team was winning.  He almost got to rah rah a pedophile because that cynical thinking.  Its the type of thinking that has the entire party going further and further off the deep end.  And its the type of thinking that will either kill that party or the country because one of them decides to start dropping nukes.  Its dangerous and people like me should be ashamed that we aren't pushing back more against people like our conservative parents who are encouraging this all in the name of getting an extra $200 off their taxes.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

17 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Afraid of discussion? Best to ignore me, please and thank you. There is too much going through the motions in political discourse these days. People are locked in news silos, which are rotting people's brains. 

Best wishes on your journey to enlightenment. Feel free to un-ignore me. 

I’m not gonna ignore you. I’m just curious what long cat screed you’re gonna post at 4:00 am this morning like you did last night. Were you up all night doing blow and posting on surly?  Sounds like a party man. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

25 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

 And a resignation that there is not a lick of difference between D's and R's. It is just a team affiliation. A circus that keeps people's minds penned into an artificial construct called political parties. A pox on both their houses. 

D v. R is lazy thinking. 

Disagree.  The political parties are merely transitory vehicles of partitioned power.  The difference between the parties is the drivers, which change over time, they can also be the same.

 Should Bernie win, he would be the driver of the Democratic Party.  You would have a hard time claiming there’s no difference between the parties then. 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

I’m not gonna ignore you. I’m just curious what long cat screed you’re gonna post at 4:00 am this morning like you did last night. Were you up all night doing blow and posting on surly?  Sounds like a party man. 

don't judge.

[wildcat09 29,360]

9 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Exhibit 1 - Anti-intellectualism. 

Exhibit 1 - Bullshit.