impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Fozzz 152]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Oh, I'm sure he will, but he's going to look really bad when he does it.

The diehard Trumpkins don't give a shit, they will support him to the end, but there's going to be plenty of moderates and others who stayed home in 2016, who are paying attention, and Trump didn't win by much in a few states.

Which takes us back to why Republicans are freaking out and want the trial over quickly.  Plus, Trump might start some shit militarily to distract people, and the closer into the election season this goes, the worse it will be for Rs.

lmao

[kevwun 15769]

More info about Nunes is going to come out also along with Rudy eventually getting indicted.  Let Mitch continue to loudly proclaim that he will work hand in hand with the White House and see how well it goes over with the 60% of the country who aren't Trump loving morons.

[Tailgate 3021]

14 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

That's what people are saying. Many people, the best people. Really straight-out-of-central-casting people. Also Tailgate is better looking than Tom Cruise. Equal faces but a better body.

Nope. Better face too.

[wildcat09 29347]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'd really like one of the surlawyers to weigh in on whether or not there is a crime committed if one takes an oath they have already affirmed they will not abide by.

Honestly, it seems backwards to me, and that might be why there would be no crime (perjury?) but holy cow, it stinks to high heaven.

Violating the oath isn't a crime.  The only remedy is political.

[jimmyjazz 45893]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Violating the oath isn't a crime.  The only remedy is political.

Are you sure?  Lying to a government agent is a crime.  Maybe there's no overlap there.

[American Swindle 102]

Our political system is being exposed and crumbling right before our very eyes and I for one am loving every minute of it.  

It's ironic that while the Dems are all focused on impeaching the Trump, 10 of Trump's judges were ushered in, the NDAA was passed and had bi partisan support which gives him more funding and allows him to continue with more power than ever, and the Afghanistan Papers are released showing that US establishment officials failed to tell the truth regarding the war in Afghanistan.   

 

Fact: The Dems are not anti-war.  

Fact: The Republicans care not about government spending or the size of government.  

 

Carry on with the show ladies and gents.    

[American Swindle 102]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Are you sure?  Lying to a government agent is a crime.  Maybe there's no overlap there.

BUWAHAHAHAAHAHAA!

Ask James Clapper if lying under oath is a crime.  You see, if you are part of the managerial state apparatus, you have a different standard than us common folk.  Criminy.  

[atomheartbevo 89630]

14 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

lmao

80,000 votes over three states is not a big deal to overcome.  Particularly when looking at the voting patterns in those three states since 2016.

And Hillary('s emails) are not on the ballot next year.

[David Dennison 18851]

4 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

BUWAHAHAHAAHAHAA!

Ask James Clapper if lying under oath is a crime.  You see, if you are part of the managerial state apparatus, you have a different standard than us common folk.  Criminy.  

It is a crime. Whether DOJ does anything about it is up to them.

[jimmyjazz 45893]

1 minute ago, American Swindle said:

BUWAHAHAHAAHAHAA!

Ask James Clapper if lying under oath is a crime.  You see, if you are part of the managerial state apparatus, you have a different standard than us common folk.  Criminy.  

As usual, you missed the point.  I'm not asking if perjury is a crime, and I'm not asking if James Clapper committed perjury.  I'm asking if there is a crime (such as perjury) that covers taking an oath administered by a government agent when one has already affirmed no intent to abide by the oath.

Whether or not such a crime, should it exist, would be prosecuted is another discussion entirely.

*crimony

[atomheartbevo 89630]

14 minutes ago, kevwun said:

More info about Nunes is going to come out also along with Rudy eventually getting indicted.  Let Mitch continue to loudly proclaim that he will work hand in hand with the White House and see how well it goes over with the 60% of the country who aren't Trump loving morons.

They should hold off on Rudy, and let him continue traveling around Eastern Europe and giving interviews and admitting to forcing state department employees out.

Although I do look forward to Nunes eventually having his name dragged through the court system, even if it's not him directly.

[Tuco 5076]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

80,000 votes over three states is not a big deal to overcome.  Particularly when looking at the voting patterns in those three states since 2016.

And Hillary('s emails) are not on the ballot next year.

On the other hand, beating an incumbent President in a hot economy is no easy task.  I don't know when the last time it happened.  I'm going to working really fucking hard to try to make it happen, but part of meeting a challenge is recognizing it.   

Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with impeachment.  

[American Swindle 102]

Just now, David Dennison said:

It is a crime. Whether DOJ does anything about it is up to them.

I see a lot of folks in the left camp applauding the IC for partisan reasons stemming from their deep desire to get rid of the Trump at all costs and find it ironic when it's apparent they are not trustworthy.  

 

[American Swindle 102]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

As usual, you missed the point.  I'm not asking if perjury is a crime, and I'm not asking if James Clapper committed perjury.  I'm asking if there is a crime (such as perjury) that covers taking an oath administered by a government agent when one has already affirmed no intent to abide by the oath.

Whether or not such a crime, should it exist, would be prosecuted is another discussion entirely.

*crimony

You missed my point.  

It doesn't matter the crime, it matters what side your on as to how the standard is applied.  

Take Snowden as an example as to how whistleblowers are treated that go against the regime vs the whistleblowers that exposed the Trump-Ukraine phone call.  One is lauded by the establishment, the other, well....you know how that goes.  

[Guest Lobo]

this will come down to what Senators from what swing states are up for re-election.  That's it.  

[Foosters 17843]

I think American Swindle may be horrified by how much he has in common with leftists.

[David Dennison 18851]

3 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

You missed my point.  

It doesn't matter the crime, it matters what side your on as to how the standard is applied.  

Take Snowden as an example as to how whistleblowers are treated that go against the regime vs the whistleblowers that exposed the Trump-Ukraine phone call.  One is lauded by the establishment, the other, well....you know how that goes.  

Snowden didn't follow the whistleblower law. He went outside the law.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5792]

26 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Violating the oath isn't a crime.  The only remedy is political.

 

Dems should rotate picking bills that the house passed with bipartisan support and put it on Kentucky. Why won't Kentucky support our vets? Both Republicans and Democrats support expanded health care for our military veterans, so why does Kentucky support Moscow Mitch in his efforts to prevent our veterans from the benefits they deserve? 

[TexArcher 37771]

6 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I think American Swindle may be horrified by how much he has in common with leftists.

If I were a leftist, I would be horrified by that, too.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Snowden didn't follow the whistleblower law. He went outside the law.

That is a good point, whether you like what he did or not.

[Guest Lobo]

So when do we start the "Senate Trial" thread so we can track how many fuckups McConnell makes?  

Also---is there some rule that says to be in Congressional leadership, you have to be an intolerable cunt?  I'm thinking back to Tip O'Neill, Wright, Dole, Cranston, and Gingrich.  Sure you don't agree with the policies but they were decent people that were easy to be listen to.  Nowadays, Pelosi, McConnell, Hastert, Harry Reid.  All deplorable pieces of shit that sound worse than a proctology exam.  I can't wait for both these parties to burn themselves to the ground so we can reboot with a Parliamentarian coalition styled government that's more reflective of the most diverse nation on Earth.  

[Enchubben 5510]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

It prevents the Senate from taking up the issue until it comes to an agreement on witnesses and procedure to the liking of House leadership.

That's power.

That’s one way of looking at it.

Another would be that perhaps Nancy knows it’s going to result in a dismissal or acquittal in the Senate because the case for impeachment on both articles is so weak. Confirms this is a political sham in many eyes because if they really believed in it, they would send it on.

[Homercles 10205]

Has Fozz/Rocko always been set to volume 11 in here and so sure of himself?  Seems like it’s been ramped up and I’m proud of y’all ignoring him when he never really engages/answers anyway.  

[David Dennison 18851]

2 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

That’s one way of looking at it.

Another would be that perhaps Nancy knows it’s going to result in a dismissal or acquittal in the Senate because the case for impeachment on both articles is so weak. Confirms this is a political sham in many eyes because if they really believed in it, they would send it on.

If Republicans really believed in the president's innocence, they would allow for witnesses.

[atomheartbevo 89630]

15 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

That’s one way of looking at it.

Another would be that perhaps Nancy knows it’s going to result in a dismissal or acquittal in the Senate because the case for impeachment on both articles is so weak. Confirms this is a political sham in many eyes because if they really believed in it, they would send it on.

Trump and his defenders are not acting like this is a weak case at all.  He simply does not radiate the confidence of somebody who believes they are truly innocent - every single fucking day, his twitter is that of somebody who is scared shitless.  His defenders in Congress during the hearings could not defend his actions, so they simply shouted about how unfair the process was, how mean Democrats were.

If you are a strong individual who is fully confident you are innocent, you do not attack the political process, you attack the evidence.  Instead, Trump and Team R whine and whine and whine about how unfair the process is, and then turn around and proclaim before the Senate trial even starts, that they are going to make sure it's over as quickly as possible, and that the Senate Republicans are coordinating with Trump.

I guess it doesn't help when Devin Nunes' name turns up as a contact of Rudy's Eastern European buddies.

Edited December 19, 2019 by atomheartbevo

[Incredulity 11657]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If Republicans really believed in the president's innocence, they would allow for witnesses.

If the Democrats really believed in the president's guilt, they would have executed the constitutional authority they have and made them testify in the House.

 

And round and round we go...

Edited December 19, 2019 by Incredulity

[wildcat09 29347]

20 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

That’s one way of looking at it.

Another would be that perhaps Nancy knows it’s going to result in a dismissal or acquittal in the Senate because the case for impeachment on both articles is so weak. Confirms this is a political sham in many eyes because if they really believed in it, they would send it on.

Lol, yeah it's so weak the Republicans have yet to offer any actual defense.

[Dahobbs 17527]

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

If the Democrats really believed in the president's guilt, they would have executed the constitutional authority they have and made them testify in the House.

 

And round and round we go...

What a fucking load of shit. You know the President was directing people to ignore Congressional subpoenas, so pray tell what exact enforcement ability does this House have at that point? 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Enchubben 5510]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Trump and his defenders are not acting like this is a weak case at all.  He simply does not radiate the confidence of somebody who believes they are truly innocent - every single fucking day, his twitter is that of somebody who is scared shitless.  His defenders in Congress during the hearings could not defend his actions, so they simply shouted about how unfair the process was, how mean Democrats were.

If you are a strong individual who is fully confident you are innocent, you do not attack the political process, you attack the evidence.  Instead, Trump and Team R whine and whine and whine about how unfair the process is, and then turn around and proclaim before the Senate trial even starts, that they are going to make sure it's over as quickly as possible, and that the Senate Republicans are coordinating with Trump.

I guess it doesn't help when Devin Nunes' name turns up as a contact of Rudy's Eastern European buddies.

I don’t think you can really judge the guy based on his twitter activity, clearly he thinks and acts differently than most everyone else on social media.

Sure, republicans in the house and senate have been critical of the process (I would argue rightly so), but they also repeated the facts over and over again yesterday as well. The problem for republicans in arguing against evidence, is that there wasn’t a lot provided by democrats to fight.

Interesting that you mention fair process though, given the Democrats are already complaining about impartial jurors in the senate and the “fair” process of a senate trial.

[Incredulity 11657]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What a fucking load of shit. You know the President was directing people to ignore Congressional subpoenas, so pray tell what exact enforcement ability does this House have at that point? 

They should have issued(and not dropped ones they did issue) subpoenas and enforced them through the judicial system.

They have no enforcement ability at this point.  They willingly gave it up.

  

Edited December 19, 2019 by Incredulity

[CowboyFred 1151]

1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

Unprecedented my ruddy, red, rectum, practically every President that has ever been in office has had conflicts with Congress over testimony in hearings from members of the Executive Branch.  They have all gone through the court systems to decide who is right and who is wrong and no Congress has ever considered impeaching any of them before.  Obama used the same system to keep his staff members from testifying in Congress on the Fast and Furious case.  It's not obstructive, it's the fucking Constitution.  Three coequal branches of government, the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch.  One of the responsibilities of the Judicial Branch is to rule on instances where the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch have conflicts which each other.  If the Executive Branch had to always do what the Legislative Branch demanded then the two branches would not be coequal now would they.

oh NOW you care about the separation of powers between the co-equal branches of government? When Trump was withholding the aid already approved by another co-equal branch of government because of his own self-interest, is that obstructive or is it "the fucking Constitution"?  I'll hang up and listen.

[Foosters 17843]

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

They should have issued(and not dropped ones they did issue) subpoenas and enforced them through the judicial system.

They have no enforcement ability at this point.  They willingly gave it up.

  

Lol. The obstruction of justice is the Dems fault for not trying harder to prevent justice from being obstructed.

 

That's gold.

[Dahobbs 17527]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Issue subpoenas and enforce them through the judicial system.  

Even if it was possible to get a final judicial decision in a timely manner, again, what fucking enforcement mechanism does Congress have when the executive branch, you know, the one that EXECUTES the law, refuses to enforce the decision? 

[Enchubben 5510]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Even if it was possible to get a final judicial decision in a timely manner, again, what fucking enforcement mechanism does Congress have when the executive branch, you know, the one that EXECUTES the law, refuses to enforce the decision? 

Assuming you get a judicial decision that confirms these witnesses have to present themselves, or certain information had to be provided, if the president then does not comply, that is when you have an actual valid basis for impeachment. And one that could get bipartisan support.

[wildcat09 29347]

3 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Assuming you get a judicial decision that confirms these witnesses have to present themselves, or certain information had to be provided, if the president then does not comply, that is when you have an actual valid basis for impeachment. And one that could get bipartisan support.

Here’s the tell. Any time they dangle the potential to earn their agreement they’re lying. They’ll be doing this shit up until the moment they start trying to drag their political opponents off to camps.

[kevwun 15769]

Impeachment will never get bipartisan support because the goalposts would be moved again.  There is no bottom for Republicans.  They will justify literally anything Trump does.

Edited December 19, 2019 by kevwun

[jimmyjazz 45893]

6 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Assuming you get a judicial decision that confirms these witnesses have to present themselves, or certain information had to be provided, if the president then does not comply, that is when you have an actual valid basis for impeachment. And one that could get bipartisan support.

Well, there is that little thing about bribing a foreign government official to announce an investigation into one's political rival.  I know, facts.  Man, they suck.

[David Dennison 18851]

23 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

If the Democrats really believed in the president's guilt, they would have executed the constitutional authority they have and made them testify in the House.

And round and round we go...

Hence, Article II of impeachment.

[David Dennison 18851]

23 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

They should have issued(and not dropped ones they did issue) subpoenas and enforced them through the judicial system.

They have no enforcement ability at this point.  They willingly gave it up.

Which subpoenas have they dropped?

[Incredulity 11657]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Hence, Article II of impeachment.

That's going to be a problem in the future.  The debasement continues.

[Incredulity 11657]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Which subpoenas have they dropped?

Pompeo, Pence, Mulvaney.

[David Dennison 18851]

Just now, Incredulity said:

Pompeo, Pence, Mulvaney.

You sure about that?

[hayden_horn 11362]

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

That's going to be a problem in the future.  The debasement continues.

trump has debased the office of the president.

anyone supporting him or really any republican these days is debasing themselves. 

including you. it's kind of sad.

[Incredulity 11657]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

trump has debased the office of the president.

anyone supporting him or really any republican these days is debasing themselves. 

including you. it's kind of sad.

[Enchubben 5510]

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, there is that little thing about bribing a foreign government official to announce an investigation into one's political rival.  I know, facts.  Man, they suck.

If there were any substantive evidence supporting bribery there would be an article of impeachment for it. There isn’t, and hence we have abuse of power and obstruction of congress.

[jimmyjazz 45893]

1 minute ago, Enchubben said:

If there were any substantive evidence supporting bribery there would be an article of impeachment for it. There isn’t, and hence we have abuse of power and obstruction of congress.

You mean other than the Chief of Staff admitting it, saying "get over it", and the POTUS admitting it later that day?

THAT kind of substantive evidence?

[Incredulity 11657]

2 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

If there were any substantive evidence supporting bribery there would be an article of impeachment for it. There isn’t, and hence we have abuse of power and obstruction of congress.

no, no we couldn't prove it because we didn't have time to enforce the subpoenas.  But, the Senate should./SlayQueen 

[jimmyjazz 45893]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

no, no we couldn't prove it because we didn't have time to enforce the subpoenas.  But, the Senate should./SlayQueen 

You don't prove the crime in the grand jury phase.

[Biff Tannen 45665]

This is pretty astounding. I guess I knew deep down that the cult would twist themselves in knots trying to defend after he was impeached, but to see it in reality is just amazing.  They truly do live in an alternate universe. 
 

There is no way to fight that with logic. I’m afraid it will end another way. 

[Jhawk 1075]

Serious question... could the house not send the impeachment to the senate until after 2020 elections? Thought being that if the dems win the senate and Trump wins re-election then they will have him removed Day 1 of his second term?

is there an expiration date with a new Congress or new senate on the impeachment vote?