impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[kevwun 15938]

There has to be a 2/3 majority in the Senate and that's not possible without Republican votes.

[Incredulity 11684]

2 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

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?

They would have to win a super majority in the Senate for that to be a lock.

[Jhawk 1075]

If the dems had 54 senators then I bet they could pick up at least 10 with Romney building a coalition.

even without a supermajority having 60% of the senate for removal and having the house and senate majority would effectively end his presidency even if he was still in office. 

[kevwun 15938]

Romney is all talk.  He'll never actually do anything to oppose Trump.  His niece is the RNC chair and one of Trump's biggest enablers.

Edited December 19, 2019 by kevwun

[JimmyJames 12271]

Moscow Mitch done fucked up and already admitted to the nation he had prejudged the case and was not going to hold a fair trial. Nancy is just calling him on his bullshit and trump and the Trumpkins are now freaking out and playing the victim it’s so unfair card which is all they ever do. 

Fuck em. Withhold the articles until Moscow Mitch agrees to a fair trial. The trolls can whine all they want. Don’t matter. Don’t care. 

[Fozzz 152]

11 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

If the dems had 54 senators then I bet they could pick up at least 10 with Romney building a coalition.

even without a supermajority having 60% of the senate for removal and having the house and senate majority would effectively end his presidency even if he was still in office. 

[burntorangebongos 10752]

It would be cool if Romney would pull a Jeff Flake move and get Collins and Murkowski and one other senator to compell MoscowMitch to call witnesses, but that is almost 0.0% of that happening unless they get a lot of pressure from their constiuents. What would be in it for them to buck their party, aside from integrity?

[Degenerate Gardner 4089]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

Moscow Mitch done fucked up and already admitted to the nation he had prejudged the case and was not going to hold a fair trial. Nancy is just calling him on his bullshit and trump and the Trumpkins are now freaking out and playing the victim it’s so unfair card which is all they ever do. 

Fuck em. Withhold the articles until Moscow Mitch agrees to a fair trial. The trolls can whine all they want. Don’t matter. Don’t care. 

Exactly. Merrick Fucking Garland. Goodwill is long gone precisely because it's not reciprocated. This is war. 

 

[horncyclist 1391]

3 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

It would be cool if Romney would pull a Jeff Flake move and get Collins and Murkowski and one other senator to compell MoscowMitch to call witnesses, but that is almost 0.0% of that happening unless they get a lot of pressure from their constiuents. What would be in it for them to buck their party, aside from integrity?

Trump ran attack ads against Romney after he spoke out when the whistleblower report came out. That, and whatever other pressure he got, seems to have quieted him. What a coward.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

1 hour 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.

  

How long have we been waiting on the court case regarding Don McGahn? I'll tell ya, eight months and still we wait. How long have we been waiting on the courts to rule on the President's tax returns? So don't throw out some lame excuse that they should have enforced them through the judicial system. The democrats do that and elections are being held before we ever get a ruling. 

[TwiceHorn 31647]

32 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Fucking troglodyte with his spoon still in his bowl like white trash.

[DigglerontheHoof 21263]

1 hour ago, horncyclist said:

Trump ran attack ads against Romney after he spoke out when the whistleblower report came out. That, and whatever other pressure he got, seems to have quieted him. What a coward.

Yep, Mormons are as spineless as their Christian cousins.

 

[Tuco 5084]

1 hour ago, Jhawk said:

If the dems had 54 senators then I bet they could pick up at least 10 with Romney building a coalition.

even without a supermajority having 60% of the senate for removal and having the house and senate majority would effectively end his presidency even if he was still in office. 

There is no course of events in which the Republicans are going to say, yeah, that's fair. 

The Democrats voted for impeachment.  The Republicans say the impeachment was rushed. 

If the Democrats delayed, the Republicans would say, as many are saying currently, "we have an election coming up in x months...let the voters decide."

If the Democrats delayed until after the election, the Republicans would say, "the voters have already decided."  

This is not a discussion on governance that is being held in good faith.  It is posturing, and nothing more. 

[Bateshorn 9942]

1 hour ago, Jhawk said:

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?

The impeachment articles expire with the 116th Congress.

[Biff Tannen 45757]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

This is not a discussion on governance that is being held in good faith

This is correct and should be applied across the board with Rs.  They have shown themselves over the past 3 years especially.

[Enchubben 5540]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

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?

If saying “get over it” with no context is substantial evidence then I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Mulvaney also said the aid was held up while the president was considering the corruption in Ukraine, whether or not other countries were providing aid, and the status of an ongoing investigation with our DOJ.

Show your work where the POTUS admitted to holding up aid because of an investigation into Biden’s son. 

There is no evidence or facts to support any wrongdoing without twisting and manipulating the words of people that weren’t even on the call that was the basis for all of this. Hell one of the supposed fact witnesses provided and interviewed by the democrat IC admitted in his testimony that his statement was speculation or presumption.

[Biff Tannen 45757]

1 minute ago, Enchubben said:

If saying “get over it” with no context is substantial evidence then I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Mulvaney also said the aid was held up while the president was considering the corruption in Ukraine, whether or not other countries were providing aid, and the status of an ongoing investigation with our DOJ.

Show your work where the POTUS admitted to holding up aid because of an investigation into Biden’s son. 

There is no evidence or facts to support any wrongdoing without twisting and manipulating the words of people that weren’t even on the call that was the basis for all of this. Hell one of the supposed fact witnesses provided and interviewed by the democrat IC admitted in his testimony that his statement was speculation or presumption.

Welp, we're done here.

[Pig Bellmont 8745]

The President who had to pay $2million for defrauding his own charity cares about corruption is a hard pill to swallow.  Also “trials aren’t a place for witnesses or proving facts” is a horrifically dumb stance.  You guys look like morons. 

[Chuckie Finster 22759]

1 minute ago, Enchubben said:

If saying “get over it” with no context is substantial evidence then I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Mulvaney also said the aid was held up while the president was considering the corruption in Ukraine, whether or not other countries were providing aid, and the status of an ongoing investigation with our DOJ.

Show your work where the POTUS admitted to holding up aid because of an investigation into Biden’s son. 

There is no evidence or facts to support any wrongdoing without twisting and manipulating the words of people that weren’t even on the call that was the basis for all of this. Hell one of the supposed fact witnesses provided and interviewed by the democrat IC admitted in his testimony that his statement was speculation or presumption.

True or False: Corruption has been in issue in Ukraine for more than 1 year.

True or False: Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board in 2014.

True or False: Trump did not hold up aid to Ukraine in 2017.

True or False: Trump did not hold up aid to Ukraine in 2018.

True or False: Joe Biden announced his candidacy to run for President in April of 2019.

True or False: Ukraine elects a new President, one who explicitly campaigned on anti-corruption measures, in April of 2019.

True or False: Trump holds up Ukraine for the first time in his Presidency, in 2019.

[Bama Chick 28596]

This is a perfect tweet.

(And the responses are pretty great too.)

[Jhawk 1075]

17 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The impeachment articles expire with the 116th Congress.

Thank you for this. 

19 minutes ago, Tuco said:

There is no course of events in which the Republicans are going to say, yeah, that's fair. 

The Democrats voted for impeachment.  The Republicans say the impeachment was rushed. 

If the Democrats delayed, the Republicans would say, as many are saying currently, "we have an election coming up in x months...let the voters decide."

If the Democrats delayed until after the election, the Republicans would say, "the voters have already decided."  

This is not a discussion on governance that is being held in good faith.  It is posturing, and nothing more. 

Good comment. The whole thing has been a clown show. Pelosi should have run the deal herself. 

[hayden_horn 11365]

12 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

If saying “get over it” with no context is substantial evidence then I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Mulvaney also said the aid was held up while the president was considering the corruption in Ukraine, whether or not other countries were providing aid, and the status of an ongoing investigation with our DOJ.

Show your work where the POTUS admitted to holding up aid because of an investigation into Biden’s son. 

There is no evidence or facts to support any wrongdoing without twisting and manipulating the words of people that weren’t even on the call that was the basis for all of this. Hell one of the supposed fact witnesses provided and interviewed by the democrat IC admitted in his testimony that his statement was speculation or presumption.

um, there is plenty of context. watch the video here:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/10/18/mulvaney-trump-get-over-it-quid-pro-quo-sot-crn-vpx.cnn

press: "let's be clear, what you described is a quid pro quo. it is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democrat server happened."

mulvaney: "we do that all the time."

[Foosters 17898]

14 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

If saying “get over it” with no context is substantial evidence then I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Mulvaney also said the aid was held up while the president was considering the corruption in Ukraine, whether or not other countries were providing aid, and the status of an ongoing investigation with our DOJ.

Show your work where the POTUS admitted to holding up aid because of an investigation into Biden’s son. 

There is no evidence or facts to support any wrongdoing without twisting and manipulating the words of people that weren’t even on the call that was the basis for all of this. Hell one of the supposed fact witnesses provided and interviewed by the democrat IC admitted in his testimony that his statement was speculation or presumption.

You can be damn sure that in any criminal trial, a defendant being confronted with specific accusations and saying "get over it," is going to come in as evidence. Its evidence of guilt. And any prosecutor worth a shit is going to hammer that line repeatedly to the jury.  

I wont even bother responding to the rest of your post because you are intentionally distorting the truth. 

[Biff Tannen 45757]

1 minute ago, Foosters said:

I wont even bother responding to the rest of your post because you are intentionally distorting the truth

AKA lying.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

AKA lying.

AKA being a pussy ass bitch.

[atomheartbevo 89895]

2 hours ago, kevwun said:

There is no bottom for Republicans. 

[atomheartbevo 89895]

3 hours ago, Enchubben said:

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.

Actually, I think I can, since it reflects how he acts at his rallies and at some of his press conferences when he goes off-script.    That, and he and various press secretaries/spokespeople have said that his twitter account is him unfiltered.  

[hayden_horn 11365]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

goddamn, this got me good. actually laughed out loud.

[jimmyjazz 46352]

Regardless of Mulvaney's and Trump's statements, we have the EVIDENCE in which multiple government employees, most of whom were Trump appointees, stated under oath that the aid was withheld specifically because Trump wanted Zelensky to announce an investigation of the Bidens.  

Quote

I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

Text message from William Taylor, U.S. interim chargé d'affaires in Ukraine

 

Just. Fucking. Stop.  The evidence is all there.  Stop supporting a thug and a traitor.  Just stop.  It's easy.

P.S.  One need not be "on the call" to be in the loop on subsequent planning and execution.  Stop with this silly detail -- it's immaterial.  Grow up.

Edited December 19, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[Enchubben 5540]

22 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

um, there is plenty of context. watch the video here:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/10/18/mulvaney-trump-get-over-it-quid-pro-quo-sot-crn-vpx.cnn

press: "let's be clear, what you described is a quid pro quo. it is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democrat server happened."

mulvaney: "we do that all the time."

We do that all the time is clearly referencing holding aid until other policy requests or actions are considered or agreed to, not specifically an investigation into Hunter Biden. (Less questionable, but not too different from Joe Biden not giving $1B in aid until the Ukraine prosecutor looking into Burisma corruption was fired) And he’s right, presidents are allowed to hold aid, and actually expected to, until concerns of corruption are resolved.

[burntorangebongos 10752]

Wrong. Biden threatened witholding the aid if the prosecutor who didn't prosecute corrupt companies like Burisma was not fired. Why do you lie about this?

[jimmyjazz 46352]

Enchubben is a troll with zero interest in truthful engagement.  I'm going in.  Fuck trolls.

[Chuckie Finster 22759]

9 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

We do that all the time is clearly referencing holding aid until other policy requests or actions are considered or agreed to, not specifically an investigation into Hunter Biden. (Less questionable, but not too different from Joe Biden not giving $1B in aid until the Ukraine prosecutor looking into Burisma corruption was fired) And he’s right, presidents are allowed to hold aid, and actually expected to, until concerns of corruption are resolved.

There's a very simple Q&A earlier on this page that you have conveniently ignored.  

[pacman 7380]

2 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Wrong. Biden threatened witholding the aid if the prosecutor who didn't prosecute corrupt companies like Burisma was not fired. Why do you lie about this?

You can't argue facts with a constituency that just throws their hands in the air and declares fake news every time a fact threatens their narrow, false point of view.

Edited December 19, 2019 by pacman

[hayden_horn 11365]

6 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

We do that all the time is clearly referencing holding aid until other policy requests or actions are considered or agreed to, not specifically an investigation into Hunter Biden. (Less questionable, but not too different from Joe Biden not giving $1B in aid until the Ukraine prosecutor looking into Burisma corruption was fired) And he’s right, presidents are allowed to hold aid, and actually expected to, until concerns of corruption are resolved.

i mean, that's not at all true. try thinking critically and looking shit up before spouting it as fact.

Quote

May 13, 2014: Burisma Group, a private company that has drilled for natural gas in Ukraine since 2002, announced that Hunter Biden would be joining its board. Around that time, Burisma’s founder, a former government official named Mykola Zlochevsky, was under investigation for alleged money laundering by Britain’s Serious Fraud Office.

Dec. 8, 2015: Biden visited Kiev again and spoke out against bureaucratic corruption that he said was eating Ukraine “like a cancer.” Biden threatened to withhold loan guarantees unless Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who had been widely accused of corruption, was removed.

Shokin had investigated Burisma but the probe was dormant at the time Biden pushed for the prosecutor’s termination, Bloomberg reported earlier this year, citing a former Ukrainian official.

March 29, 2016: The Ukrainian Parliament voted to remove Shokin.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-timeline/timeline-key-dates-in-the-us-political-controversy-over-ukraine-idUSKBN1W82HK

it's like you want to be publicly known as a complete fool.

biden was advancing public US policy. trump was asking for a personal favor. there's a fucking grand canyon's worth of difference between the two things.

[hayden_horn 11365]

14 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

We do that all the time is clearly referencing holding aid until other policy requests or actions are considered or agreed to, not specifically an investigation into Hunter Biden. (Less questionable, but not too different from Joe Biden not giving $1B in aid until the Ukraine prosecutor looking into Burisma corruption was fired) And he’s right, presidents are allowed to hold aid, and actually expected to, until concerns of corruption are resolved.

also, "we do that all the time" was in response to the reporter clearly stating that it was a quid pro quo for an investigation into the democrats. it was an unforced error by mulvaney. also, later that day trump also admitted to it. 

this was before someone convinced them to stop confessing to criminal acts on live television and they changed their strategy back to the WITCH HUNT HOAX RAWR approach.

it's basically the equivalent of this:

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by hayden_horn

[Lagunamadre 1975]

9 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

We do that all the time is clearly referencing holding aid until other policy requests or actions are considered or agreed to, not specifically an investigation into Hunter Biden. (Less questionable, but not too different from Joe Biden not giving $1B in aid until the Ukraine prosecutor looking into Burisma corruption was fired) And he’s right, presidents are allowed to hold aid, and actually expected to, until concerns of corruption are resolved.

Be intellectually honest here:

1) Did Trump ask the President of Ukrain to investigate Joe Biden? 

2) Is Joe Biden currently leading all national democratic primary polls (and has he been since he announced his candidacy in April of this year)?

3) Is it OK for the President of the United States to use the power of his office to coerce foreign governments to investigate their main political rival?  

That's really what this boils down to. Withholding aid, congressional processes, witness testimony, etc. etc. is all just window dressing. Questions 1 and 2 are irrefutable. I used to think the answer to question 3 was a no-brainer as well, but  the current iteration of the Republican party and it's supporters seems to be OK with the actions described in question 3 as long as it benefits their dear leader's short term interests, long-term interests of this Country be damned.  

[David Dennison 18994]

21 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

We do that all the time is clearly referencing holding aid until other policy requests or actions are considered or agreed to, not specifically an investigation into Hunter Biden. (Less questionable, but not too different from Joe Biden not giving $1B in aid until the Ukraine prosecutor looking into Burisma corruption was fired) And he’s right, presidents are allowed to hold aid, and actually expected to, until concerns of corruption are resolved.

The prosecutor was not looking into Burisma when he was fired. 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2686]

20 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

We do that all the time is clearly referencing holding aid until other policy requests or actions are considered or agreed to, not specifically an investigation into Hunter Biden. (Less questionable, but not too different from Joe Biden not giving $1B in aid until the Ukraine prosecutor NOT looking into Burisma corruption was fired) And he’s right, presidents are allowed to hold aid, and actually expected to, until concerns of corruption are resolved.

FIFY.   Just to belabor it in case you missed the previous posts.  But you will repeat your same tired, false line no matter what, no doubt.

[Pig Bellmont 8745]

[hayden_horn 11365]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

for the record, i recognize the trolling that @Enchubben is trying to pull here. my intent is to influence readers who do not post not to fall for his simplistic bullshit lies. it's obvious he's either straight lying as a troll, or he's a fucking moron. which is it?

[jimmyjazz 46352]

8 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

3) Is it OK for the President of the United States to use the power of his office to coerce foreign governments to investigate their main political rival?  

I would think one could make a pretty reasonable argument that POTUS should tread a very fine line here simply because the person in question is a political rival.  Find another avenue.  (FBI, etc.).

[Lagunamadre 1975]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I would think one could make a pretty reasonable argument that POTUS should tread a very fine line here simply because the person in question is a political rival.  Find another avenue.  (FBI, etc.).

The correct answer is any POTUS should never walk anywhere near that line for any American citizen, the other avenue (FBI, DOJ etc.) should always be the only avenue, you know because that's how the country is supposed to work. Our Presidents aren't kings, they don't get to choose who gets investigated, political rival or not. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by Lagunamadre

[jimmyjazz 46352]

Well, that too.

[henrygandorf 29198]

32 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

also, "we do that all the time" was in response to the reporter clearly stating that it was a quid pro quo for an investigation into the democrats. it was an unforced error by mulvaney. also, later that day trump also admitted to it. 

mulvaney also walked it back the next day.  which is totally what you do when you did nothing wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/20/771724300/mulvaney-walks-back-ukraine-remarks-admits-it-wasnt-a-perfect-press-conference

[henrygandorf 29198]

37 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

biden was advancing public US policy. trump was asking for a personal favor. there's a fucking grand canyon's worth of difference between the two things.

probably true, but it's not like he actually used the word "favor" though, because that would make it obvious.

[kevwun 15938]

Or that he didn't care if they actually investigated the Bidens as long as the Ukrainian government announced it publicly.  That would have meant that all he cared about was damaging Joe Biden politically and not really about corruption at all.

Edited December 19, 2019 by kevwun

[jimmyjazz 46352]

Which state is in the lead with the worst 2-legislator team?  Call it a scramble.

I'm thinking Georgia with Loudermilk and Collins, although Texas is coming on strong with Gohmert and Radcliffe.

[Guest Lobo]

Do some of you white dumbasses think that criminals use the actual words when planning crimes?

"Yes, I would like to purchase several pounds of your opioid product.  In exchange I would like to trade you several female human beings and seven boxes of ammunition for the previously discussed assault rifles."

What fucking Angela Lansbury crime novel do you live inside of, you fucking idiots?  

[Bama Chick 28596]