Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

triplehorn

triplehorn 2,664

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Someone should ask these idiots what happens if you attempt to rob a bank, but get caught in the act.

And today, why no Ukraine investigations into Bidens and 2016 election intereference ?  They just fell off the map when the whistleblower stepped forward.  why might that be?  couldn't be because it was drug bust gone south or anything.

If there was a shred of non-corrupt legitimacy to it, it would still be happening.  Instead the whole bribery scheme died when Trump got caught.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexasEd
TexasEd

I voted for Trump/Against Hilary Clinton.   He should be impeached for: Extortion of a foreign government by withholding military assistance to an ally (and benefitting Russia) in exchange

Paul Wesley
Paul Wesley

I'm a couple pages back in this fast-moving thread, but I wanted to respond to this.   I'm pretty close to you in demographics, and I was also a child who echoed his parents' pro-Reagan stance, a

Tailgate
Tailgate

Unreal. Biden’s son can take home $1m a year from a Ukrainian company he knows nothing about...but our president acts like the CEO of a company with leverage in cutting deals and this shit happens?

Posted Images

Foosters

Foosters 17,860

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Ugh, the burden runs the other way bro.  I don't find Sondland's "guess" (as Sondland himself put it) to be all that powerful of evidence of Trump's intent.  

Dude, please come be on one of my juries. In my almost decade of criminal defense, I have never once encountered anyone in a jury pool who thinks that specific intent must be proven by the accused articulating that intent. It's also not what the law, in any jurisdiction, says. 

"Yes, my client broke into the house. Yes he was wearing gloves and a mask. Yes he had a large black bag and burglary tools. But ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the people must show that my client had the specific intent to commit a crime after entering and you have heard no evidence that my client ever told anyone he was breaking into this house with any specific intent to do anything."

  • Like 7
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sbbruin

Sbbruin 21,866

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Dude, please come be on one of my juries. In my almost decade of criminal defense, I have never once encountered anyone in a jury pool who thinks that specific intent must be proven by the accused articulating that intent. It's also not what the law, in any jurisdiction, says. 

"Yes, my client broke into the house. Yes he was wearing gloves and a mask. Yes he had a large black bag and burglary tools. But ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the people must show that my client had the specific intent to commit a crime after entering and you have heard no evidence that my client ever told anyone he was breaking into this house with any specific intent to do anything."

Good to know we have a criminal defense attorney on staff here.  Just saying.  Could come in handy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13,317

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Lurch said:

So, uh, we got him?

That would require the true patriots of this country to believe a career military and foreign service professional who was also once wounded in combat and still completed his tour over an orange-tinted draft dodger who was recently found guilty of fraud and has lied daily since elected.  So, no.  We aint got shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27,720

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

So, within the (GOP written) rules, Schiff can just do a wave-around if he wants?   "Fuck it...I want to grill this motherfucker some more"?

Per House Rule 660, which is the rule that the impeachment hearing is operating under, the majority can call additional consecutive rounds of counsel questioning in increments up to 45 minutes for both the majority and minority. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Dude, please come be on one of my juries. In my almost decade of criminal defense, I have never once encountered anyone in a jury pool who thinks that specific intent must be proven by the accused articulating that intent. It's also not what the law, in any jurisdiction, says. 

"Yes, my client broke into the house. Yes he was wearing gloves and a mask. Yes he had a large black bag and burglary tools. But ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the people must show that my client had the specific intent to commit a crime after entering and you have heard no evidence that my client ever told anyone he was breaking into this house with any specific intent to do anything."

Are you really going to make this fatuous comparison?  There are a million acceptable reasons for which Trump could have conditioned the transfer of money for US weapons.  For instance, it would have been perfectly fine for him to condition that benefit on Ukraine assisting us with arming jihadists or for allowing us to torture people within Ukraine.  What acceptable reason would a burgler have for breaking into someone's house other than to steal?

  • Fuck You 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,192

Posted
Posted
Are you really going to make this fatuous comparison?  There are a million acceptable reasons for which Trump could have conditioned the transfer of money for US weapons.  For instance, it would have been perfectly fine for him to condition that benefit on Ukraine assisting us with arming jihadists or for allowing us to torture people within Ukraine.  What acceptable reason would a burgler have for breaking into someone's house other than to steal?

Yet there is no evidence of any of those alternate reasons.

There is evidence of trump withholding aid in exchange for the mere announcement of an investigation.

So, I mean, other than that, you’re making lots of sense.
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5,562

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Are you really going to make this fatuous comparison?  There are a million acceptable reasons for which Trump could have conditioned the transfer of money for US weapons.  For instance, it would have been perfectly fine for him to condition that benefit on Ukraine assisting us with arming jihadists or for allowing us to torture people within Ukraine.  What acceptable reason would a burgler have for breaking into someone's house other than to steal?

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:


Yet there is no evidence of any of those alternate reasons.

There is evidence of trump withholding aid in exchange for the mere announcement of an investigation.

So, I mean, other than that, you’re making lots of sense.

It's not on him to produce that evidence when the "bombshell" testimony amounted to the witnesses "guess" as to what Trump was intending to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27,720

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

Are you really going to make this fatuous comparison?  There are a million acceptable reasons for which Trump could have conditioned the transfer of money for US weapons.

What in the fuck are you comparing this to? The aid was appropriated by congress - meaning it was voted on and passed by both the House and the Senate, then signed into law by trump himself - and therefore it is not the decision of the executive wether or not it should be disbursed. Congress alone controls the power of the purse. Once the money was on the budget for that purpose, it had to be spent on that purpose or otherwise accounted for.

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
Just now, Captainant said:

What in the fuck are you comparing this to? The aid was appropriated by congress - meaning it was voted on and passed by both the House and the Senate, then signed into law by trump himself - and therefore it is not the decision of the executive wether or not it should be disbursed. Congress alone controls the power of the purse. Once the money was on the budget for that purpose, it had to be spent on that purpose or otherwise accounted for.

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7

lmao you think it actually works that way in practice? with any administration? Good lord rube.

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17,413

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SameSame said:

Llistening in on the local right wing radio during these hearings, lots of squirming and twisting.

Callers literally yelling and multiples saying they are going to take up arms against the Dems and take the Govt. over.

And the hosts just pushing these nutjobs and fanning the flames. Completely irresponsible behavior.

The Trumpist right needs to start fearing what will happen to them and theirs if they insist on subverting American democracy and suppressing the will of the vast majority of Americans.

Go ahead, mountain men, cowboys and Chuck Fuckin' Woolery.  Take up your arms and storm the castle.  We'll be happy to pry them from your cold, dead fingers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dnaguy

Dnaguy 12,025

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Are you really going to make this fatuous comparison?  There are a million acceptable reasons for which Trump could have conditioned the transfer of money for US weapons.  For instance, it would have been perfectly fine for him to condition that benefit on Ukraine assisting us with arming jihadists or for allowing us to torture people within Ukraine.  What acceptable reason would a burgler have for breaking into someone's house other than to steal?

You making an assumption with calling him a burglar. You don’t know the motivations of the person that comes into your house.

if someone is trying to burgle you, but gets caught and then says he broke in to leave presents under the tree, then we are supposed to believe him because he didn’t say he was trying to steal from you. 
That’s just the law.

Or at least according to the GOP

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sbbruin

Sbbruin 21,866

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

 When i saw that before i thought it was just some Photoshop. Nope, it's real

Holy shit.  I just assumed it was a shop.  He needed simpleton notes to keep him from saying the wrong thing?  How, on god’s green earth, did this man get voted into the top post in the nation?  It continues to boggle the mind.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dnaguy

Dnaguy 12,025

Posted
Posted
Just now, Sbbruin said:

Holy shit.  I just assumed it was a shop.  He needed simpleton notes to keep him from saying the wrong thing?  How, on god’s green earth, did this man get voted into the top post in the nation?  It continues to boggle the mind.  

Emails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Homercles

Homercles 10,206

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Holy shit.  I just assumed it was a shop.  He needed simpleton notes to keep him from saying the wrong thing?  How, on god’s green earth, did this man get voted into the top post in the nation?  It continues to boggle the mind.  

Fear of black/brown people, and hatred of women who don’t keep their mouth shut.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Captainant said:

I'm literally citing you the fucking constitution. And your response is "nuh uh"! That is how it works. That's the literal law of the land. 

Do you know which administration passed and signed into law the act which authorized the funding of lethal aid to Ukraine?  It was the same administration that refused to fully implement its provisions.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27,720

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Do you know which administration passed and signed into law the act which authorized the funding of lethal aid to Ukraine?  It was the same administration that refused to fully implement its provisions.

That would be the trump admin via the 2018 budget and DoD appropriations bills. The $390MM of aid was appropriated in 2018 and signed into law by trump. There was no reason to deny or delay the aid, as all the anticorruption requirements in the law had been certified by the State Dept.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...