impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[henrygandorf 29189]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

There’s also something to the idea that, of all the fucked up shit past Presidents have done, this is what we’re gonna remove a President for?  For the first time ever? For putting conditions on foreign aid that would benefit him politically?

meh(ringer)

nobody is thinking that. i would rather a president do just about anything else than abusing his office to interfere in an election that would allow him to continue to abuse his office, shit on the constitution and enrich himself personally.

this is really fucking bad. if not for the ultra-partisan times we live in, he’d be run out of town on a rail. 

[hobbes2702 13032]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

Agree. 
 

There’s also something to the idea that, of all the fucked up shit past Presidents have done, this is what we’re gonna remove a President for?  For the first time ever? For putting conditions on foreign aid that would benefit him politically?

meh(ringer)

Those pesky laws.

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

nobody is thinking that. i would rather a president do just about anything else than abusing his office to interfere in an election that would allow him to continue to abuse his office, shit on the constitution and enrich himself personally.

this is really fucking bad. if not for the ultra-partisan times we live in, he’d be run out of town on a rail. 

Nobody here is saying it. That’s not surprising. 

This is a big yawn. Explain this to average Joe voter. 
 

Trump wanted to withhold aid to Ukraine on the condition that the country announce it was investigating the ties/potential corruption of Joe Biden’s drug addled son 18 months before the election. You know, the one who married his dead brother’s widow and then cheated on her. 

Everything went through anyway.
 

This was the best thing Democrats could come up with, after almost 3 years, to try to remove a President from office for the first time ever, in an election year.

It never had a chance and was never taken seriously, even by most of the participants.
 

The End. 

[Homercles 10205]

On 12/27/2019 at 12:12 PM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

how much of it is that the people polled didn't understand the question they were asked or its implications?

I don’t think it doesn’t not quite make clear

[atomheartbevo 89649]

29 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

This was the best thing Democrats could come up with, after almost 3 years, to try to remove a President from office for the first time ever, in an election year.

It never had a chance and was never taken seriously, even by most of the participants.

I doubt that was the best thing they could come up with, nor will it be close to the last, but it was pretty clear cut, and Trump could only prevent so many federal employees from testifying.

You know who is taking it seriously?  @realDonaldTrump

Don't believe me?  He's pumped out hundreds of tweets about it since October.    It scares the shit out of him, based on the fear he is projecting over his tweets.

He's what happens when somebody gives Grandpa Simpson a twitter account.

Edited December 29, 2019 by atomheartbevo

[DDD Dad 14332]

17 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Nobody here is saying it. That’s not surprising. 

This is a big yawn. Explain this to average Joe voter. 
 

Trump wanted to withhold aid to Ukraine on the condition that the country announce it was investigating the ties/potential corruption of Joe Biden’s drug addled son 18 months before the election. You know, the one who married his dead brother’s widow and then cheated on her. 

Everything went through anyway.
 

This was the best thing Democrats could come up with, after almost 3 years, to try to remove a President from office for the first time ever, in an election year.

It never had a chance and was never taken seriously, even by most of the participants.
 

The End. 

Did you copy and paste this from Daily Storm?

[Lurch 5930]

GRHorn suddenly concerned about morals? That’s rich

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

Nobody here is saying it. That’s not surprising. 
This is a big yawn. Explain this to average Joe voter. 
 
Trump wanted to withhold aid to Ukraine on the condition that the country announce it was investigating the ties/potential corruption of Joe Biden’s drug addled son 18 months before the election. You know, the one who married his dead brother’s widow and then cheated on her. 
Everything went through anyway.
 
This was the best thing Democrats could come up with, after almost 3 years, to try to remove a President from office for the first time ever, in an election year.
It never had a chance and was never taken seriously, even by most of the participants.
 
The End. 

Hey guess what? Trump was impeached because of his actions. He gets to wear that title from here on out. It's not going to get any better for him in the Senate. He may get acquited but in doing so it will put the republican Senate majority in jeopardy come the 2020 elections. A majority of Americans want Trump impeached and removed from office. An even larger majority want a fair and full trial in the Senate, which includes hearing testimony from Cabinet members and their subordinates.

But by all means keep on supporting him as he destroys your party. I'm a Conservative at heart and voted for Trump in 2020. However, I've seen the corruption he's involved in and come election time in November I'm going to vote against Trump and vote against anyone who continues to blindly support and enable him. The Blue Wave from 2018 is only growing larger, but you already know that.

[hobbes2702 13032]

48 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Nobody here is saying it. That’s not surprising. 

This is a big yawn. Explain this to average Joe voter. 
 

Trump wanted to withhold aid to Ukraine on the condition that the country announce it was investigating the ties/potential corruption of Joe Biden’s drug addled son 18 months before the election. You know, the one who married his dead brother’s widow and then cheated on her. 

Everything went through anyway.
 

This was the best thing Democrats could come up with, after almost 3 years, to try to remove a President from office for the first time ever, in an election year.

It never had a chance and was never taken seriously, even by most of the participants.
 

The End. 

The present conditioned aid on foreign election interference. That’s a crime. You can hand wave all you want but it’s still a crime.

[GRHorn 105]

27 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I doubt that was the best thing they could come up with, nor will it be close to the last, but it was pretty clear cut, and Trump couldn't only prevent so many federal employees from testifying.

You know who is taking it seriously?  @realDonaldTrump

Don't believe me?  He's pumped out hundreds of tweets about it since October.    It scares the shit out of him, based on the fear he is projecting over his tweets.

If the Dems didn’t throw their best punch with the first one, then they’re dumber than I had accounted for. 
 

14 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

Hey guess what? Trump was impeached because of his actions. He gets to wear that title from here on out. It's not going to get any better for him in the Senate. He may get acquited but in doing so it will put the republican Senate majority in jeopardy come the 2020 elections. A majority of Americans want Trump impeached and removed from office. An even larger majority want a fair and full trial in the Senate, which includes hearing testimony from Cabinet members and their subordinates.
 

Trump did what he is accused of, same as Bill Clinton. The result will be the same, as it should be. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13581]

Lol. GR getting the Family Values Band back together.

[hobbes2702 13032]

Yes or no, it’s ok for the president to solicit foreign interfere in an election? It’s really that simple.

[4th&Five 41525]

 

[Post Oak 20210]

52 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Nobody here is saying it. That’s not surprising. 

This is a big yawn. Explain this to average Joe voter. 
 

Trump wanted to withhold aid to Ukraine on the condition that the country announce it was investigating the ties/potential corruption of Joe Biden’s drug addled son 18 months before the election. You know, the one who married his dead brother’s widow and then cheated on her. 

Everything went through anyway.
 

This was the best thing Democrats could come up with, after almost 3 years, to try to remove a President from office for the first time ever, in an election year.

It never had a chance and was never taken seriously, even by most of the participants.
 

The End. 

Imagine actually believing this.  

[henrygandorf 29189]

does the average joe voter care about ukraine?  no.

does the average joe voter care about corruption in other countries?  doubtful.

does the average joe voter care about election interference?  yes.

is america on board with the trump regime?  hmm, maybe check the 2018 midterm results.  or any polling over the past year (or 3).

asking a foreign country to announce an investigation into a political rival is not legal.  withholding congressionally approved aid to a foreign country for personal political reasons is not legal.  tying the two together is beyond fucking illegal, and way worse than anything nixon ever thought of doing.

when your only defense is "but hunter biden" or "but this is an election year", you've already lost the argument.

 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

21 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Trump did what he is accused of, same as Bill Clinton. The result will be the same, as it should be. 

Though the caveat being, Trump won't gain sympathy nor support with his impeachment where Clinton did, his rising from the high 50% to high 60% approval rating. Trump's highest approval rating came right after the election where he was at 45.5%. He's been hovering at a 40% approval rate ever since. Here are a few past Presidents with similar approval ratings going into the last year of their first term. H.W. Bush 44.6%, Carter 38.9%, Ford 43.6% LBJ 43.9%. None of them were elected for a second term. Again, the writing is on the wall, the trends from 2018 are going to continue. 

[GRHorn 105]

27 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Lol. GR getting the Family Values Band back together.

Just part of the optics of it all. 

 

26 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Yes or no, it’s ok for the president to solicit foreign interfere in an election? It’s really that simple.

I think it’s a reasonable thing to investigate corrupt foreign ties of someone with the past and profile of Hunter Biden. That said, I don’t think Trump was doing it to stamp out corruption. It was wrong to do it for his reasons, but I think you’re overplaying the amount that any announcement of an investigation would’ve “interfered” in the election 18 months hence. Thus I think it doesn’t rise to level of removing the President from office. 
 

As an aside, does asking for flexibility on issues from another world leader until after an election count as interference? I mean that’s asking another government to change their stance in order to benefit yourself in an election. 
 

[GRHorn 105]

5 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

Though the caveat being, Trump won't gain sympathy nor support with his impeachment where Clinton did, his rising from the high 50% to high 60% approval rating. Trump's highest approval rating came right after the election where he was at 45.5%. He's been hovering at a 40% approval rate ever since. Here are a few past Presidents with similar approval ratings going into the last year of their first term. H.W. Bush 44.6%, Carter 38.9%, Ford 43.6% LBJ 43.9%. None of them were elected for a second term. Again, the writing is on the wall, the trends from 2018 are going to continue. 

It just comes down to a few states. States where Trump has been focusing. I guess we’ll just have to see, Irwin. 

[hobbes2702 13032]

5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Just part of the optics of it all. 

 

I think it’s a reasonable thing to investigate corrupt foreign ties of someone with the past and profile of Hunter Biden. That said, I don’t think Trump was doing it to stamp out corruption. It was wrong to do it for his reasons, but I think you’re overplaying the amount that any announcement of an investigation would’ve “interfered” in the election 18 months hence. Thus I think it doesn’t rise to level of removing the President from office. 
 

As an aside, does asking for flexibility on issues from another world leader until after an election count as interference? I mean that’s asking another government to change their stance in order to benefit yourself in an election. 
 

So you think he broke the law? Because what you just described is against the law.

[henrygandorf 29189]

4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 It was wrong to do it for his reasons, but I think you’re overplaying the amount that any announcement of an investigation would’ve “interfered” in the election 18 months hence. Thus I think it doesn’t rise to level of removing the President from office. 

hey guys.  trump was doing a much shittier job getting biden's unfavorables into hillary clinton levels, so it shouldn't really count.

if i walk up to a person to kill them, but use a musket, and my shitty aim makes me miss, it definitely shouldn't count as attempted murder.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

It just comes down to a few states. States where Trump has been focusing. I guess we’ll just have to see, Irwin. 

That's worked out well for the vast majority of candidates he's stumped for dating back to 2018. I can see Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona all flipping blue. Heck, throw in Florida and it could become outright embarrassing for Trump. One term President who was impeached and will face criminal charges weeks after he's removed from office. He'll have brought down the republican party and exposed those that need to be voted out of office. 2020 is shaping up to be the turning point in American politics.

[henrygandorf 29189]

2 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

14 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

It just comes down to a few states. States where Trump has been focusing. I guess we’ll just have to see, Irwin. 

That's worked out well for the vast majority of candidates he's stumped for dating back to 2018. I can see Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona all flipping blue. Heck, throw in Florida and it could become outright embarrassing for Trump. One term President who was impeached and will face criminal charges weeks after he's removed from office. He'll have brought down the republican party and exposed those that need to be voted out of office. 2020 is shaping up to be the turning point in American politics.

not to mention he'll be personally responsible for the house and senate being controlled by the dems.

in that scenario, something tells me there will be a lot of come-to-jesus moments for republicans who "really disagreed with the president, but thought it was best for the country at the time blah blah".

[Lurch 5930]

not to mention he'll be personally responsible for the house and senate being controlled by the dems.
in that scenario, something tells me there will be a lot of come-to-jesus moments for republicans who "really disagreed with the president, but thought it was best for the country at the time blah blah".

That’s why we need to be diligently recording the names of his supporters now. A lot of Scarlet Ts needing to be sewn.

[henrygandorf 29189]

1 minute ago, Lurch said:

That’s why we need to be diligently recording the names of his supporters now. A lot of Scarlet Ts needing to be sewn.

 

there were also plenty of republicans who said bad things about "the call" months ago, or said something to the tune of "well, if that's what he really did, then that's not ok", but i haven't heard any of that mentioned in forever.  not sure why that shit hasn't been played on a nonstop loop since october.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

12 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

That’s why we need to be diligently recording the names of his supporters now. A lot of Scarlet Ts needing to be sewn.

 

Yes, now that it’s morally and criminally ok to investigate political rivals, the next democrat administration has their work cut out for them.  Jails are gonna be chock full of GOPers.

[atomheartbevo 89649]

20 minutes ago, Lurch said:

That’s why we need to be diligently recording the names of his supporters now. A lot of Scarlet Ts needing to be sewn.

 

They are doing a good job of making sure everybody knows who they are.

[Dbeasy 15047]

I’m really frustrated with the Democratic Party. Everywhere I turn, the Republicans are on TV, Facebook and iPhone media hammering home the message that the Senate trial is unfair. CNN, ABC, NBC, etc are all giving a lot of airtime to the Republican Senate leaders and Trump while we hear vey little from Leading Democrats. Where is the leadership? The messaging?

[Lurch 5930]

They are doing a good job of making sure everybody knows who they are.

A lot of people are about to learn that nothing can be deleted from twitter archives.

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

1 hour ago, Lurch said:

That’s why we need to be diligently recording the names of his supporters now. A lot of Scarlet Ts needing to be sewn.

 

That should also apply to all the people in our personal lives. 

[David Dennison 18854]

37 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I’m really frustrated with the Democratic Party. Everywhere I turn, the Republicans are on TV, Facebook and iPhone media hammering home the message that the Senate trial is unfair. CNN, ABC, NBC, etc are all giving a lot of airtime to the Republican Senate leaders and Trump while we hear vey little from Leading Democrats. Where is the leadership? The messaging?

All over MSNBC, CNN, and Twitter. I have no idea about facebook because facebook is for old MAGA fucks.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

Shouldn't we be talking about this:

 

[BradInATX 9208]

So you think he broke the law? Because what you just described is against the law.

Well yeah, but half the country (including almost the entirety of Trump's voting base) is too stupid and too distracted by dancing with the stars to care! Ergo, liberals = owned.

"We're too stupid! We're too stupid! Suck on that libtards!" -GRHorn, proud mouth breather.

[Goredho 17399]

On 12/29/2019 at 10:50 AM, GRHorn said:

Agree. 
 

There’s also something to the idea that, of all the fucked up shit past Presidents have done, this is what we’re gonna remove a President for?  For the first time ever? For putting conditions on foreign aid that would benefit him politically?

meh(ringer)

Ahh, if only Bill Clinton had claimed executive privilege, pressured Monica to not testify and told Kenn Starr and congress to fuck off.  He wouldn’t have been impeached for obstruction either, am I right?  All these presidents over all these years and they all had it wrong — they should have just been ignoring the separation of powers outlined in the constitution, doing whatever the fuck they want with the country as a totalitarian and telling congress to pound dirt if they object.

I don’t think the Dems should impeach either, but it’s because they are going to fuck it up and turn it into a political loss that gets Trump re-elected.  They need to enforce their constitutional authority to conduct an investigation of the President’s conduct.  Toss those that refuse to testify in jail. Don’t wait on the courts because they are steadily being stacked against you.

Or make TrumpCo violently resist law and order as spelled out in the constitution with the cameras rolling. Call Trump on his assertion that he could murder someone and still have his base, except make it Pennsylvania Avenue in DC instead of 5th Avenue in NYC.  Blood is the only thing that will get the general public to divert their attention long enough from NFL playoff games to see what’s going on.  It’s the only thing that will ensure that Trump’s dismantling of American democracy comes to an end in 2020.  Stop the frog boiling and force America to recognize what is happening.

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Goredho

[jimmyjazz 45899]

12 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Ahh, if only Bill Clinton had claimed executive privilege, pressured Monica to not testify and told Kenn Starr and congress to fuck off.  He wouldn’t have been impeached for obstruction either, am I right?

This is a key point that consistently gets lost in the "but it was such a minor thing" defense of Trump.  Guess what, GRHorn?  He was impeached on TWO counts.  It wasn't just about a phone call.

I'm sorry, but if it's OK to impeach a President for perjury when being questioned about a blow job, then it's OK to impeach a President for inviting foreign election interference AND (key word AND) obstructing Congress' efforts to investigate his behavior.

This is absolutely worse than Nixon's crimes.

[jimmyjazz 45899]

Let me add one thing:  any President with a shred of respect for the Constitution and the rule of law would have taken great pains to avoid even the APPEARANCE of soliciting foreign investigation of a political rival.  I can't say how such a thing "should" be approached, but any direct involvement by the President is bad.

[Nolacycling 893]

If I  remember, Clinton was impeached for lieing to Congress. This is a chance that most likely won't happen and Republicans support it. 

[TwiceHorn 31450]

12 minutes ago, Nolacycling said:

If I  remember, Clinton was impeached for lieing to Congress. This is a chance that most likely won't happen and Republicans support it. 

To a grand jury and in a civil suit (Paula Jones, IIRC).  http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clinton_impeachment_articles.htm

But see Article IV, relating to the impeachment investigation.

Edited January 1, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 45899]

That suit was later dismissed (or whatever you lawyer types call it).

[Brandywine 1316]

I hope Susan Collins loses her re-election. She loves flirting the idea she’s a moderate. Bullshit, she’s hardcore red. I don’t trust her as far as I can spit, which is not far.

[Dbeasy 15047]

I hope Susan Collins loses her re-election. She loves flirting the idea she’s a moderate. Bullshit, she’s hardcore red. I don’t trust her as far as I can spit, which is not far.

I guess I don’t understand the situation. Two women senators are the only ones with the balls to call out the Senate trial as being a potential sham. Not one other Republican Senator has said a word.

[hookemATL 11714]

10 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

I guess I don’t understand the situation. Two women senators are the only ones with the balls to call out the Senate trial as being a potential sham. Not one other Republican Senator has said a word.

 

It’s all lip service. They will fall in line like the craven power hungry cunts they are at heart. Do your fucking job. 

[jimmyjazz 45899]

I don't think Collins has earned any benefit of the doubt.  When she actually follows through and does the right thing, however politically painful, then I'll reevaluate my opinion of her.

[Jack Straw 2954]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think Collins has earned any benefit of the doubt.  When she actually follows through and does the right thing, however politically painful, then I'll reevaluate my opinion of her.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for her, or any Republican, to do the right thing.  

[Goredho 17399]

On 12/31/2019 at 5:59 PM, TwiceHorn said:

To a grand jury and in a civil suit (Paula Jones, IIRC).  http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clinton_impeachment_articles.htm

But see Article IV, relating to the impeachment investigation.

One of Clinton's partners in the Whitewater real-estate investment scandal was Susan McDougal, and she refused to testify to a grand jury put together by Kenn Starr and spent 22 months in jail.  She says she refused to testify to prevent perjuring herself, not to protect Bill Clinton.  Clinton later pardoned her to end her time in prison.  Ultimately, all that could be proven against Clinton is that he lied under oath about receiving a blow job in the white house from a subordinate.  While that lie under oath was a crime, it was not a threat to democracy, free and fair elections, our constitution or the basic tenets of shared power and checks and balances that serve as a foundation our nation is constructed upon.  Nothing Clinton was accused of was a threat to those things and the events around Whitewater happened well before his Presidency began.

Trump has both overtly and covertly solicited foreign powers to interfere in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections in his favor.  He has openly obstructed congress' and a special investigator's authority to investigate these matters and told those closest to his conduct to not comply with subpoenas and otherwise refuse to offer testimony.  So let us say that is it, there is nothing else to be found if all stones could be turned over.  Well, those actions alone are absolutely threats to our democracy, free and fair elections, our constitution, shared power and checks and balances.

So those closest to Trump are honoring his requests and refusing to testify under oath.  Why are they not in jail like Susan McDougal?  Why are the Democrats not enforcing the constitution and ensuring that either:

• These people's testimony is heard
• They get tossed in jail for willful non-compliance with the law
• They have to violently resist the law to avoid testifying or going to jail

Instead, the Dems are going to let people like Mulvaney and the President himself avoid testifying.  They are settling for calling a few witnesses distal to the President and providing an incomplete picture of his conduct to an American people that are mostly blasé about politics.  And most here say, "Fuck yeah! Look at the polling!  The GOP is going to hang themselves trying to protect Trump!"   Well, if polling was reliable, Trump would have never been President.  And you can bet in 2020 there will be a more rabid base turning out at near 100% coupled with more efforts both foreign and domestic to subvert the votes of everyone else.

As a final thought for those finding comfort in this quixotic impeachment effort and the polls showing some support for impeachment and removal: How did polling suddenly become so unreliable in 2016?  Is it that there was some hidden glitch in all the algorithms that was suddenly exposed by Trump?  Or was there some other factor(s) involved that influenced the election results and made pre-election polls unreliable?  If it is the latter, what has happened between 2016 and now to ensure it doesn't happen again?

Edited January 2, 2020 by Goredho

[DDD Dad 14332]

45 minutes ago, Goredho said:

One of Clinton's partners in the Whitewater real-estate investment scandal was Susan McDougal, and she refused to testify to a grand jury put together by Kenn Starr and spent 22 months in jail.  She says she refused to testify to prevent perjuring herself, not to protect Bill Clinton.  Clinton later pardoned her to end her time in prison.  Ultimately, all that could be proven against Clinton is that he lied under oath about receiving a blow job in the white house from a subordinate.  While that lie under oath was a crime, it was not a threat to democracy, free and fair elections, our constitution or the basic tenets of shared power and checks and balances that serve as a foundation our nation is constructed upon.  Nothing Clinton was accused of was a threat to those things and the events around Whitewater happened well before his Presidency began.

Trump has both overtly and covertly solicited foreign powers to interfere in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections in his favor.  He has openly obstructed congress' and a special investigator's authority to investigate these matters and told those closest to his conduct to not comply with subpoenas and otherwise refuse to offer testimony.  So let us say that is it, there is nothing else to be found if all stones could be turned over.  Well, those actions alone are absolutely threats to our democracy, free and fair elections, our constitution, shared power and checks and balances.

So those closest to Trump are honoring his requests and refusing to testify under oath.  Why are they not in jail like Susan McDougal?  Why are the Democrats not enforcing the constitution and ensuring that either:

• These people's testimony is heard
• They get tossed in jail for willful non-compliance with the law
• They have to violently resist the law to avoid testifying or going to jail

Instead, the Dems are going to let people like Mulvaney and the President himself avoid testifying.  They are settling for calling a few witnesses distal to the President and providing an incomplete picture of his conduct to an American people that are mostly blasé about politics.  And most here say, "Fuck yeah! Look at the polling!  The GOP is going to hang themselves trying to protect Trump!"   Well, if polling was reliable, Trump would have never been President.  And you can bet in 2020 there will be a more rabid base turning out at near 100% coupled with more efforts both foreign and domestic to subvert the votes of everyone else.

As a final thought for those finding comfort in this quixotic impeachment effort and the polls showing some support for impeachment and removal: How did polling suddenly become so unreliable in 2016?  Is it that there was some hidden glitch in all the algorithms that was suddenly exposed by Trump?  Or was there some other factor(s) involved that influenced the election results and made pre-election polls unreliable?  If it is the latter, what has happened between 2016 and now to ensure it doesn't happen again?

Let's not minimize Clinton's misdeeds.  My view is that his conduct, both with regard to the sexual harassment (as a subordinate Lewinski's "consent" was tainted) and the perjury to the grand jury rendered him unfit to remain in office.

One need not defend Clinton to justify the actions against Trump.

[Goredho 17399]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Let's not minimize Clinton's misdeeds.  My view is that his conduct, both with regard to the sexual harassment (as a subordinate Lewinski's "consent" was tainted) and the perjury to the grand jury rendered him unfit to remain in office.

One need not defend Clinton to justify the actions against Trump.

I’m not trying to defend Clinton, simply to point out the paradox between the special investigator’s and opposition party’s approach to ensuring a proper investigation in his case vs Trump’s.

[DDD Dad 14332]

Just now, Goredho said:

I’m not trying to defend Clinton, simply to point out the paradox between the special investigator’s and opposition party’s approach to ensuring a proper investigation in his case vs Trump’s.

I hear you but I don't see a paradox.  The Independent Counsel's approach was based on an expired statutory provision that was replaced by the Special Counsel regulations under which Mueller operated.  That the House elected not to proceed on any of Mueller's findings is indicative of the limitations of that replacement procedure.  The fact that the Independent Counsel law was allowed to expire reflects the issues surrounding it, and why many viewed it as flawed.  The current inquiry is completely independent of special and independent counsel actions, which is why I don't see any point in trying to compare them.  Instead I view the evidence that was revealed in both to reach conclusions that to me are completely consistent.

Neal Katyal (who worked on drafting the current regulations) did a deep dive on this matter with the NYT a year or so ago; it is very interesting stuff, but not particularly relevant to the question of the current impeachment inquiry involving Ukraine.

[Goredho 17399]

Nevermind

Edited January 2, 2020 by Goredho

[sachick 1189]

I have CNN on and McConnell is speaking to the senate. I have no idea what he just said because he is so boring I tuned him out. Not a good speaker at all.

[horn4life 3760]

The bottom line is that the GOP simply does not want the TRUTH to be known.

No matter how you slice it, dice it, parse it, or rationalize it they simply do not want the truth to be known.