Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Enchubben

Enchubben 5,510

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

 


So fucking what?

I got the idea to redo my garage from watching PBS.

CNN is not a propagandist network like FOX no matter how many times your orange god says so.

 

Hahahahahahahahahbahabahahahahahah...

oh sorry.

hahahahahahahahahahabah

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 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

Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Hahahahahahahahahbahabahahahahahah...

oh sorry.

hahahahahahahahahahabah

That was a very insincere 'sorry' to him so why bother?

Anyway, there seems to be a confusion between "bias" and "propaganda." Over *60% of 'facts' represented by Fox as truth are actually not. CNN has had some horrifically public news blunders (which, naturally their competition is only too happy to report), but their false statements are much much lower, (80% of their statements are "at least half true"). The media have biases, which is fairly obvious, but Fox and the WH have a very close relationship that is not normal nor correct. It is harmful and destructive. There is nothing wrong with having a right or conservative bias, but Fox is not news, they are propaganda.

*Sorry jimmyjazz, you posted while I was typing; well put. Thank you.

 

https://www.mintpressnews.com/pants-on-fire-analysis-shows-60-of-fox-news-facts-are-really-lies/205563/

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/false/

https://www.politifact.com/search/?q=alll+false+statements+involving+fox

https://www.mediamatters.org/lou-dobbs/lou-dobbs-compares-senator-mike-lee-benedict-arnold-criticizing-trump-administrations

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
Clarification
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5,562

Posted
Posted

The problem is, Trump's admin has allowed and even promoted the idea of "alternative facts" or essentially "my truth". So that whatever I feel like is my truth, is truth. Which as most of us know, is complete and utter bull shit. But damn it must feel good to be an ignorant Trumper and be reminded that "you are special" over and over again, like mommy used to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enchubben

Enchubben 5,510

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

That was a very insincere 'sorry' to him so why bother?

Anyway, there seems to be a confusion between "bias" and "propaganda." Over *60% of 'facts' represented by Fox as truth are actually not. CNN has had some horrifically public news blunders (which, naturally their competition is only too happy to report), but their false statements are much much lower, (80% of their statements are "at least half true"). The media have biases, which is fairly obvious, but Fox and the WH have a very close relationship that is not normal nor correct. It is harmful and destructive. There is nothing wrong with having a right or conservative bias, but Fox is not news, they are propaganda.

*Sorry jimmyjazz, you posted while I was typing; well put. Thank you.

 

https://www.mintpressnews.com/pants-on-fire-analysis-shows-60-of-fox-news-facts-are-really-lies/205563/

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/false/

https://www.politifact.com/search/?q=alll+false+statements+involving+fox

https://www.mediamatters.org/lou-dobbs/lou-dobbs-compares-senator-mike-lee-benedict-arnold-criticizing-trump-administrations

80% of their facts are half true is the "played and lost to 4 number one teams" of reporting.  Put it on the stadium wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14,335

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

The problem is, Trump's admin has allowed and even promoted the idea of "alternative facts" or essentially "my truth". So that whatever I feel like is my truth, is truth. Which as most of us know, is complete and utter bull shit. But damn it must feel good to be an ignorant Trumper and be reminded that "you are special" over and over again, like mommy used to do. 

UltimateSleepyCoypu-small.gif

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

80% of their facts are half true is the "played and lost to 4 number one teams" of reporting.  Put it on the stadium wall.

My fact-checker would most likely report with 100% that you didn't bother to read the links. The article from which I paraphrased was from 2015 and here is a little more:
 

Quote

 

CNN got the best grades on their scorecard, with 80 percent of their reports deemed at least “half true.”

Punditfact began maintaining these scorecards in 2014, and their January analysis shows that MSNBC and CNN are improving their truthfulness score with time. Fox, however, is not improving — in fact, it’s getting worse.

 

When it comes right down to it, when watching their television, who is more apt to make a sound decision, Pelosi or Trump?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,452

Posted
Posted

I'm a bit perplexed by the whole "fair trial" thing.

It ain't gonna be a "fair trial" in the sense that disinterested factfinders and law-appliers are going to hear the case.  No matter what rules the Senate adopts.

Compelling the testimony of witnesses won't make it a fair trial.

Hell, I don't think anything about impeachment calls for fairness or impartiality.  It's a political process.

This is just a general commentary.  It's not intended to criticize Pelosi or support Mitch n Linda or any such thing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2,664

Posted
Posted

“Hell, I don't think anything about impeachment calls for fairness or impartiality.  It's a political process.”

With that in mind, fairness = reveal  complicit GOP bias as much as possible.  There is also a major political impact in drawing this out which favors Pelosi’s stance.  Recall a majority of Americans support impeachment with removal.  GOP Senate can’t dodge that.  There’s also talk of the effect on Trump of giving the SOTU on 2/4 without having been acquitted.  R’s do not have any political leverage when it’s obvious they’re trying to be as “unfair” as possible.  Pelosi is forcing this to percolate as more comes out, as is the case in the last couple weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burt

Burt 4,080

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait, what?  The Senate was 55/45 R/D in 1999.  What are you saying?

I think he's trying to say he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, but without just coming out and saying it.  That's what I got from it anyway.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pacman

pacman 7,355

Posted
Posted

Am I correct that Republicans do not want to limit gun rights so they can oppose a government that may or may not obtain too much power. Meanwhile, today, they also do not want anybody to discuss a resolution limiting the recently expanded executive branch powers in declaring war?

Is this not a clear contradiction or am I just looking at it wrong?

I mean, are they for or against limiting government's power or not. A clear government of checks and balances(to include the President) is, imo, clearly complimentary to the intentions of the right to arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28,596

Posted
Posted
Am I correct that Republicans do not want to limit gun rights so they can oppose a government that may or may not obtain too much power. Meanwhile, today, they also do not want anybody to discuss a resolution limiting the recently expanded executive branch powers in declaring war?
Is this not a clear contradiction or am I just looking at it wrong?
I mean, are they for or against limiting government's power or not. A clear government of checks and balances(to include the President) is, imo, clearly complimentary to the intentions of the right to arms.


You’re applying logic where none exists.

Once you come to terms with the fact that the GOP has NEVER held any real principles nor ever acted in good faith, that they’ve always operated on “For me and not thee” and “I got mine, fuck all y’all” then all the stuff they do makes perfect sense.

TL;DR - they suck pole and have always been lying hypocrites.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,452

Posted
Posted

Not to support Republicans, but the Second Amendment is a pretty different issue than the "war powers dichotomy" presented by Articles I and II.

In the Second Amendment case, it's what the government, any government, federal, local, or state can do to limit ownership of guns.

In the war powers case, there's no debate about the power of the federal government to raise and direct the military, but there is tension between which PART of the federal government can wield the power in a particular set of circumstances:  the congress with its exclusive power to declare war, or the executive as commander-in-chief.  

So, it's not really a good analogy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 187

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm a bit perplexed by the whole "fair trial" thing.

It ain't gonna be a "fair trial" in the sense that disinterested factfinders and law-appliers are going to hear the case.  No matter what rules the Senate adopts.

Compelling the testimony of witnesses won't make it a fair trial.

Hell, I don't think anything about impeachment calls for fairness or impartiality.  It's a political process.

This is just a general commentary.  It's not intended to criticize Pelosi or support Mitch n Linda or any such thing.

The Founders assigned Impeachment to the political branches because there are no impartial jurors in the government.  Can you imagine US history if Comey-like deep staters chose who gets Impeached?

6 hours ago, Red Five said:

No I think the dems would love to get testimony from everyone like they got in 99. Is that what you meant? 

Oh do they want the Bidens to sit for closed door depositions? I hadn't heard. 

 

But seriously there was no chance Clinton would be removed in 1999 and the same for Trump in 2020.

Edited by notre dame joe
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BLKNSTY

BLKNSTY 289

Posted
Posted
 

Oh do they want the Bidens to sit for closed door depositions? I hadn't heard. 

 

one retarded take after another.

 

dumb as a motherfucking domer is my phrase for 2020 you chromosome deficient fuck. so at least I got something out of your lame ass troll attempt.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ted Lange

Ted Lange 16,084

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

 

The Founders assigned Impeachment to the political branches because there are no impartial jurors in the government.  Can you imagine US history if Comey-like deep staters chose who gets Impeached?

Oh do they want the Bidens to sit for closed door depositions? I hadn't heard. 

 

But seriously there was no chance Clinton would be removed in 1999 and the same for Trump in 2020.

Do,the TRUMPS want to open the door to conversations about their taxes and “investments”.  Do you honestly think DONALD TRUMP is clean?   
 

I’m all in on Trump v Biden,   Get everything we can on Hunter, then release trumps taxes, all the Deutche bank stuff, release. ALL of it and see where the chips fall.  Guess what, Trump is WAY to big a pussy to do that. Until Trump is willing to that he should shut the fuck up, like the rest of his dipshit brigade w

Edited by Ted Lange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45,903

Posted
Posted

Preet Bharara pantsed Doug Collins in a CNN opinion piece:

 

Spoiler

Dear Representative Doug Collins,

You are not my congressman, and while I am ever thankful for that fact, after seeing your performance on Fox News on Wednesday night, I'm not sure you are fit to be anyone's congressman. Specifically, I saw you blithely assert on national television that Democrats "are in love with terrorists. We see that they mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families."
No American is "in love" with terrorists or "mourns" the death of that Iranian general on an airstrip in Baghdad. Many of us do, however, mourn the death of decency, honesty and reason here at home.
 
I realize that you are a politician and that hyperbolic, hyperpartisan claptrap is the unfortunate fashion of the day. But even allowing for the new normal of nastiness in political rhetoric, your casual slur of countless good Americans hits a new bottom. Americans can, in good faith, differ about the legality or efficacy of killing Soleimani. That doesn't make them unpatriotic or lovers of terrorists. It is hostility to differences of opinion that is un-American.
I understand that politics is a tough racket. I served as a Democratic staffer in the US Senate. I get that terrorism is a threat. I prosecuted terrorists as a United States attorney, working just yards from Ground Zero. I know of the particular evil posed by Qasem Soleimani. My office prosecuted plots orchestrated by him and the Quds Force, including the conspiracy to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States in 2011.
04689bd42cc610f75d46ce395c1785e0.png
Smart takes from sharp minds
Sign up for CNN Opinion’s Provoke/Persuade weekly newsletter.
Provoke/Persuade Me
By subscribing you agree to our
So, I have some idea of what is at stake here when it comes to terrorism. As you well know, Congressman, terrorists do not kill Republicans or Democrats. They kill Americans.
You know what else is true? The prosecutors, law enforcement agents and intelligence officers who keep us safe from terrorism do not do so as Republicans or Democrats. They do so as Americans. The victims of terrorism — and their families — do not grieve as members of a political party. They do so as Americans.
You are not a talk radio host or a carnival barker. You are a pastor, an attorney and a sitting member of Congress. Therefore, the evidence would suggest you should know better. To utter such garbage, which you know to be false and defamatory, goes against all the training and teaching you must have received. But you got your cheap shot across, and perhaps that's all that matters to you.
To be clear, Congressman, I am not making some old and familiar naive call for a return to "civility" in our politics. I don't have much hope for that in the immediate future. I just want people like you to knock off the worst scurrilous nonsense. I'd hope that would be possible for a member of the House who happens to be the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.
If we are going to come together, protect the homeland and heal the hearts of people who have suffered the scars of terrorism, we need our leaders to do better than lazy trash talk.
Learn that volume and wisdom are not the same thing.
You were elected to lead. Please give it a try.
Respectfully,
Preet Bharara

Doug Collins is not on Preet's Christmas card list

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted (edited)

Serious question for a political noob; what is the value and gain in not sending impeachment docs to the Senate? Why should the opposition (GOP) care and want them and be forced to acknowledge or do anything with it?

If it hangs in purgatory for a year that seems good for them, they don’t have to address it and it falls out of the news cycle and it’s like it never happened and/or doesn’t exist, and it looks like the lack of any consequence would be the D’s fault for not progressing the process and letting it stall out. Right? Of course I’m the guy that has learned what the impeachment process was only last month and I’m 15 years out of Social Studies civics class where you’d think I’d have learned that stuff but public schools and/or I am dumb.

Edited by Rougarou
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Preet Bharara pantsed Doug Collins in a CNN opinion piece:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Dear Representative Doug Collins,

You are not my congressman, and while I am ever thankful for that fact, after seeing your performance on Fox News on Wednesday night, I'm not sure you are fit to be anyone's congressman. Specifically, I saw you blithely assert on national television that Democrats "are in love with terrorists. We see that they mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families."
No American is "in love" with terrorists or "mourns" the death of that Iranian general on an airstrip in Baghdad. Many of us do, however, mourn the death of decency, honesty and reason here at home.
 
I realize that you are a politician and that hyperbolic, hyperpartisan claptrap is the unfortunate fashion of the day. But even allowing for the new normal of nastiness in political rhetoric, your casual slur of countless good Americans hits a new bottom. Americans can, in good faith, differ about the legality or efficacy of killing Soleimani. That doesn't make them unpatriotic or lovers of terrorists. It is hostility to differences of opinion that is un-American.
I understand that politics is a tough racket. I served as a Democratic staffer in the US Senate. I get that terrorism is a threat. I prosecuted terrorists as a United States attorney, working just yards from Ground Zero. I know of the particular evil posed by Qasem Soleimani. My office prosecuted plots orchestrated by him and the Quds Force, including the conspiracy to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States in 2011.
04689bd42cc610f75d46ce395c1785e0.png
Smart takes from sharp minds
Sign up for CNN Opinion’s Provoke/Persuade weekly newsletter.
 
Provoke/Persuade Me
By subscribing you agree to our
So, I have some idea of what is at stake here when it comes to terrorism. As you well know, Congressman, terrorists do not kill Republicans or Democrats. They kill Americans.
You know what else is true? The prosecutors, law enforcement agents and intelligence officers who keep us safe from terrorism do not do so as Republicans or Democrats. They do so as Americans. The victims of terrorism — and their families — do not grieve as members of a political party. They do so as Americans.
You are not a talk radio host or a carnival barker. You are a pastor, an attorney and a sitting member of Congress. Therefore, the evidence would suggest you should know better. To utter such garbage, which you know to be false and defamatory, goes against all the training and teaching you must have received. But you got your cheap shot across, and perhaps that's all that matters to you.
To be clear, Congressman, I am not making some old and familiar naive call for a return to "civility" in our politics. I don't have much hope for that in the immediate future. I just want people like you to knock off the worst scurrilous nonsense. I'd hope that would be possible for a member of the House who happens to be the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.
If we are going to come together, protect the homeland and heal the hearts of people who have suffered the scars of terrorism, we need our leaders to do better than lazy trash talk.
Learn that volume and wisdom are not the same thing.
You were elected to lead. Please give it a try.
Respectfully,
Preet Bharara

Doug Collins is not on Preet's Christmas card list

I read that piece after Walter Shaub had linked to the column in his twitter account. I knew everything I needed to know about Doug Collings when I watched the two committees during the Inquiry but Bharara sums it up nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11,667

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Serious question for a political noob; what is the value and gain in not sending impeachment docs to the Senate? Why should the opposition (GOP) care and want them and be forced to acknowledge or do anything with it?

If it hangs in purgatory for a year that seems good for them, they don’t have to address it and it falls out of the news cycle and it’s like it never happened and/or doesn’t exist, and it looks like the lack of any consequence would be the D’s fault for not progressing the process and letting it stall out. Right? Of course I’m the guy that has learned what the impeachment process was only last month and I’m 15 years out of Social Studies civics class where you’d think I’d have learned that stuff but public schools and/or I am dumb.

two options:

 

The slay queen is:

 

A.) ...off her meds and completely delusional.

B.) ...playing 4D chess. 

 

Please proceed to your preferred "news" outlet for programming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14,335

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Preet Bharara pantsed Doug Collins in a CNN opinion piece:

 

  Hide contents

Dear Representative Doug Collins,

You are not my congressman, and while I am ever thankful for that fact, after seeing your performance on Fox News on Wednesday night, I'm not sure you are fit to be anyone's congressman. Specifically, I saw you blithely assert on national television that Democrats "are in love with terrorists. We see that they mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families."
No American is "in love" with terrorists or "mourns" the death of that Iranian general on an airstrip in Baghdad. Many of us do, however, mourn the death of decency, honesty and reason here at home.
 
I realize that you are a politician and that hyperbolic, hyperpartisan claptrap is the unfortunate fashion of the day. But even allowing for the new normal of nastiness in political rhetoric, your casual slur of countless good Americans hits a new bottom. Americans can, in good faith, differ about the legality or efficacy of killing Soleimani. That doesn't make them unpatriotic or lovers of terrorists. It is hostility to differences of opinion that is un-American.
I understand that politics is a tough racket. I served as a Democratic staffer in the US Senate. I get that terrorism is a threat. I prosecuted terrorists as a United States attorney, working just yards from Ground Zero. I know of the particular evil posed by Qasem Soleimani. My office prosecuted plots orchestrated by him and the Quds Force, including the conspiracy to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States in 2011.
04689bd42cc610f75d46ce395c1785e0.png
Smart takes from sharp minds
Sign up for CNN Opinion’s Provoke/Persuade weekly newsletter.
 
Provoke/Persuade Me
By subscribing you agree to our
So, I have some idea of what is at stake here when it comes to terrorism. As you well know, Congressman, terrorists do not kill Republicans or Democrats. They kill Americans.
You know what else is true? The prosecutors, law enforcement agents and intelligence officers who keep us safe from terrorism do not do so as Republicans or Democrats. They do so as Americans. The victims of terrorism — and their families — do not grieve as members of a political party. They do so as Americans.
You are not a talk radio host or a carnival barker. You are a pastor, an attorney and a sitting member of Congress. Therefore, the evidence would suggest you should know better. To utter such garbage, which you know to be false and defamatory, goes against all the training and teaching you must have received. But you got your cheap shot across, and perhaps that's all that matters to you.
To be clear, Congressman, I am not making some old and familiar naive call for a return to "civility" in our politics. I don't have much hope for that in the immediate future. I just want people like you to knock off the worst scurrilous nonsense. I'd hope that would be possible for a member of the House who happens to be the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.
If we are going to come together, protect the homeland and heal the hearts of people who have suffered the scars of terrorism, we need our leaders to do better than lazy trash talk.
Learn that volume and wisdom are not the same thing.
You were elected to lead. Please give it a try.
Respectfully,
Preet Bharara

Doug Collins is not on Preet's Christmas card list

It's a shame this won't get any oxygen where it might actually have an impact on changing any minds capable of change.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45,903

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

It's a shame this won't get any oxygen where it might actually have an impact on changing any minds capable of change.

Preet failed to point out that Collins is a Lt. Colonel in the US Air Force (reserves).  A little bit of missed gravitas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

two options:

 

The slay queen is:

 

A.) ...off her meds and completely delusional.

B.) ...playing 4D chess. 

 

Please proceed to your preferred "news" outlet for programming.

So...not sure I understand this answer.

What is the impact, good bad or indifferent, on withholding the impeachment docs? I don't see the value or potential gain or even what the impact is other than a negative in that people forget about impeachment and it's lost in the ether while everyone talks about Harry and Meghan and the Golden Globes tiny purses and the Superbowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11,667

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

So...not sure I understand this answer.

What is the impact, good bad or indifferent, on withholding the impeachment docs? I don't see the value or potential gain or even what the impact is other than a negative in that people forget about impeachment and it's lost in the ether while everyone talks about Harry and Meghan and the Golden Globes tiny purses and the Superbowl.

Good: 

Bitching about Trump

Bitching about McConnell and Senate R's

 

 

Bad:

Makes the whole thing look even more purely partisan

Constituent Fatigue

D Presidential Primary Campaign conflicts with delayed timing of start

  • Like 1
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...