impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Fozzz 152]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That won't do anything to hold up a judicial appointment.

There's nothing Democrats can do to stop those appointments from getting thorough the Senate as long as the Republicans have 50 votes and Mother Pence.

Simply because the GOP has a majority in the Senate does not mean that Dems are powerless to at least slow the pace of confirmations so as to minimize the number of judges Trump can confirm during his presidency.  The truth is the Senate dems are not even trying to slow Trump down, and are often voting in favor of Trump's judges.  Hell, Schumer even cut a deal with McConnell last year to fast-track some judicial confirmations. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/politics/mcconnell-democrats-judges-deal/index.html

[Incredulity 11876]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

It also prevents Donald Trump from being acquitted in a Senate trial until there is an agreement that fact witnesses who the president does not want to produce are heard.

Lol,

If Nancy wants to run the Senate she should run for the Senate.

 

That's not how any of this works.  I don't believe withholding the articles presents any leverage.  I am sure Mitch will just say send them when you are good and ready.

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Incredulity said:

Lol,

If Nancy wants to run the Senate she should run for the Senate.

That's not how any of this works.  I don't believe withholding the articles presents any leverage.  I am sure Mitch will just say send them when you are good and ready.

We'll find out. She doesn't ever have to send them if she doesn't want to.

[Biff Tannen 46168]

Mitch definitely wants them sent at some point, otherwise they can't acquit and proclaim his innocence.

[horncyclist 1391]

They should just let this hang over Trump and keep moving forward with the other investigations and litigation. There's not much risk here. 

[David Dennison 19542]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Mitch definitely wants them sent at some point, otherwise they can't acquit and proclaim his innocence.

Which is why he committed an unforced error when he ran his mouth about the trial's preordained result.

Edited December 19, 2019 by David Dennison

[kevwun 16438]

Yeah, I really like this move.  Mitch has loudly promised everyone that he will not run a fair trial in the Senate, so this is the best counter move Pelosi has.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5908]

8 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Fuck you, Mitch.

Did I catch him saying the Dems tried to impeach Donald for being mean to the press?? 

[Red Five 41738]

I don't think I'd ever really thought about what Trump's reaction would be post-senate trial. Facts won't matter. "I've been found innocent! The impeachment has been overturned! We're going to start the investigations of congress and send them to jail, starting with crazy Nancy!"

[Tuco 5093]

26 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I don't know. I'm not really that invested in the impeachment. Obviously nothing is going to happen. November 2020 is what matters. 

The title of this thread is "Impeachment inquiry hearings thread."  Did you click on it by mistake?  

[Biff Tannen 46168]

3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I don't think I'd ever really thought about what Trump's reaction would be post-senate trial. Facts won't matter. "I've been found innocent! The impeachment has been overturned! We're going to start the investigations of congress and send them to jail, starting with crazy Nancy!"

Oh this is definitely what will happen, but he won't actually follow through with anything.  Just like the Rs did fuck all the first 2 years.

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

The title of this thread is "Impeachment inquiry hearings thread."  Did you click on it by mistake?  

Dumb.

[Tuco 5093]

15 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Simply because the GOP has a majority in the Senate does not mean that Dems are powerless to at least slow the pace of confirmations so as to minimize the number of judges Trump can confirm during his presidency.  The truth is the Senate dems are not even trying to slow Trump down, and are often voting in favor of Trump's judges.  Hell, Schumer even cut a deal with McConnell last year to fast-track some judicial confirmations. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/politics/mcconnell-democrats-judges-deal/index.html

Seems like a full trial in the Senate could help slow things done. 

[Tailgate 3077]

21 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

If you are a CEO then you are demonstrating a tremendous amount of immaturity and ignorance. I’m sure your employees love you.

 

Incredibly strong team of great people. Not sure anyone has the exact same political and/or religious beliefs and we all can have a different opinion.  Go figure.

[atomheartbevo 90650]

41 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Look how triggered these pussies are.

 

26 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Laughable.

It is power.   Look at how triggered Trump, Turtle, Linda, etc. are over this - all but foaming at the mouth in front of the microphones.

Nancy is going to make Turtle and Co. go on the record about how things are handled, and there is nothing they can do about it other than not give her the information - otherwise, they risk the first two articles pushing into election season.

There is a reason why Dotard and Turtle and Co. need this impeachment over within a few weeks. 

[Incredulity 11876]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

 

It is power.   Look at how triggered Trump, Turtle, Linda, etc. are over this - all but foaming at the mouth in front of the microphones.

Nancy is going to make Turtle and Co. go on the record about how things are handled, and there is nothing they can do about it other than not give her the information - otherwise, they risk the first two articles pushing into election season.

There is a reason why Dotard and Turtle and Co. need this impeachment over within a few weeks. 

I am not sure triggering Trump is the measure of any success.  He was going to be on full blown tweet explosion post impeachment vote no matter what.

 

As stated above the Democratic Senators running for the Presidency need this over ASAP as well.

Interesting strategy for sure.

[horncyclist 1391]

15 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I don't think I'd ever really thought about what Trump's reaction would be post-senate trial. Facts won't matter. "I've been found innocent! The impeachment has been overturned! We're going to start the investigations of congress and send them to jail, starting with crazy Nancy!"

Remember when Erdogan consolidated power after the attempted (maybe staged) coup. It will probably be something like that. 

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

I am not sure triggering Trump is the measure of any success.  He was going to be on full blown tweet explosion post impeachment vote no matter what.

As stated above the Democratic Senators running for the Presidency need this over ASAP as well.

Interesting strategy for sure.

It's leverage. She can prevent Donald Trump from getting the acquittal he wants until she is convinced that there will be a fair trial.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

12 hours ago, TornACL said:

I always enjoy when people who clearly have no idea what a CEO does, try to tell us that "he's just acting like a CEO!" 

Maybe he meant this CEO. 

Or perhaps this CEO. 

Or maybe this one. 

Those examples are also cases where leverage was used to cut deals - - the only pesky problem being that said leverage and use of such was illegal. 

So in short, I'd be real careful with the use of the word "leverage", particularly if you're accepting that the President used Congressionally approved funds as leverage to prompt the investigation of a political rival. That's what you're accepting, yes? 

 

 

Good post.

Also, the leverage wasn't his to use.  It was our fucking money, duly appropriated by our elected representatives to go to Ukraine.

And, the "deal" wasn't of any benefit to anyone except Donald Jizzbucket Trump.  It had no benefit to USA, Inc. to employ the analogy.

The kind of deal, where, as you note, CEOs go to jail, or at least lose their jobs.

Please don't call Trump a CEO.  While a lot of CEOs are kinda garbage, Trump is an insult to the title.

Edited December 19, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[GRHorn 105]

40 minutes 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.

What a stupid fucking take.
 

House has sole power to impeach. Senate has sole power to hold the trial. Cocaine Mitch holds the keys. Withholding articles just highlights how it was all theater.

[kevwun 16438]

There will never be a fair trial while Mitch has power, so I think this will just hang over his head the rest of his Presidency.

Edited December 19, 2019 by kevwun

[atomheartbevo 90650]

Just now, Incredulity said:

I am not sure triggering Trump is the measure of any success.  He was going to be on full blown tweet explosion post impeachment vote no matter what.

As stated above the Democratic Senators running for the Presidency need this over ASAP as well.

Interesting strategy for sure.

Assuming there are only the two articles that were voted on yesterday (and that's a big assumption), if they push February/March, it becomes a serious problem for the GOP, because the GOP's rapid defense of Trump will remain in the minds of a lot of voters much longer, and it's going to continue causing Trump to have all kinds of shit-fits.  And you know he won't be able to help himself ,and will constantly be shouting in all caps "WHY WON'T THEY SEND THE IMPEACHMENT STUFF TO THE SENATE SO THE SENATE CAN PROTECT ME AND BIAL ME OUT!!#$@"

Plus, it gives Rudy more time for fact-finding trips to Ukraine and Russia.  That's not helpful to Trump at all.

[Fozzz 152]

7 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I am not sure triggering Trump is the measure of any success.  He was going to be on full blown tweet explosion post impeachment vote no matter what.

 

As stated above the Democratic Senators running for the Presidency need this over ASAP as well.

Interesting strategy for sure.

The only upside of impeachment I see is that it forces MSNBC, CNN, etc., to take a break from pumping shitlords like Biden and Mayor Pete.  It may be a bad strategy for Dems, but it could help Bernie for a few weeks at least.

[EMAWesome 101]

38 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It also prevents Donald Trump from being acquitted in a Senate trial until there is an agreement that fact witnesses who the president does not want to produce are heard.

Wait a minute, it is the House's job to make the case for impeachment.  If they need these witnesses to testify so bad to make their case then why aren't they waiting for the courts to decide whether or not these witnesses must honor the subpoenas or not?  They can't say we don't feel like going through the legal system to make our case but we are going to force the Senate to wait until they go through the legal system to start the trial.  You don't vote on impeachment and then gather evidence.  You gather all your evidence and then you vote on impeachment.  To compare this to the justice system the House's role is to play the part of the grand jury and decide whether or not charges should be filed and the case taken to trial.  The Senate's role is to hold the trial.   You don't hold the trial first and then go through the process of a grand jury.  If you didn't have all the evidence you wanted then you shouldn't have been voting on whether or not to move forward with the process.

[Incredulity 11876]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's leverage. She can prevent Donald Trump from getting the acquittal he wants until she is convinced that there will be a fair trial.

Brilliant, I guess I'm using the same leverage over Marisa Miller by denying her my penis.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

Just now, EMAWesome said:

Wait a minute, it is the House's job to make the case for impeachment.  If they need these witnesses to testify so bad to make their case then why aren't they waiting for the courts to decide whether or not these witnesses must honor the subpoenas or not?  They can't say we don't feel like going through the legal system to make our case but we are going to force the Senate to wait until they go through the legal system to start the trial.  You don't vote on impeachment and then gather evidence.  You gather all your evidence and then you vote on impeachment.  To compare this to the justice system the House's role is to play the part of the grand jury and decide whether or not charges should be filed and the case taken to trial.  The Senate's role is to hold the trial.   You don't hold the trial first and then go through the process of a grand jury.  If you didn't have all the evidence you wanted then you shouldn't have been voting on whether or not to move forward with the process.

They don't need the witnesses.  They have made the case.

It's only in response to "why haven't we heard from White House officials" that the issue of subpoenas is brought in.

Trump's assertion of executive privilege to preclude congressional testimony of any White House official is unprecedented and, in ordinary litigation, would be dismissed as frivolous.  It's obstructive.  He has vexatiously multiplied these proceedings.

[kevwun 16438]

Only the Republican mind can justify blocking the process at every turn while screaming that the process wasn't thorough enough.

[Biff Tannen 46168]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Donald Jizzbucket Trump

Has a nice ring to it.

[EMAWesome 101]

11 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Assuming there are only the two articles that were voted on yesterday (and that's a big assumption), if they push February/March, it becomes a serious problem for the GOP, because the GOP's rapid defense of Trump will remain in the minds of a lot of voters much longer, and it's going to continue causing Trump to have all kinds of shit-fits.  And you know he won't be able to help himself ,and will constantly be shouting in all caps "WHY WON'T THEY SEND THE IMPEACHMENT STUFF TO THE SENATE SO THE SENATE CAN PROTECT ME AND BIAL ME OUT!!#$@"

Plus, it gives Rudy more time for fact-finding trips to Ukraine and Russia.  That's not helpful to Trump at all.

The only minds that a rapid defense of Trump will remain in are the minds of people who aren't going to vote for him anyway.  The more you try to convince Independents (because you will literally be able to count the number of Republicans who won't vote for Trump because of this on one hand) that this shit sandwich is prime rib the more Independents are going to see through you and vote for Trump.  The Democrats have fallen into a political pitcher plant and there is no way for them to climb back out of it.  Impeachment is going to do to the Democrats what Brexit did to the Labour Party.  If the Democrats in Congress think that this impeachment is a solemn, somber, occasion then they are going to need lithium after November 3, 2020.

[jimmyjazz 47203]

18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's leverage. She can prevent Donald Trump from getting the acquittal he wants until she is convinced that there will be a fair trial.

What's to stop McConnell from changing the rules of the trial after she sends over the articles of impeachment?

[4th&Five 42005]

 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3555]

Lol,
If Nancy wants to run the Senate she should run for the Senate.
 
That's not how any of this works.  I don't believe withholding the articles presents any leverage.  I am sure Mitch will just say send them when you are good and ready.

In this case she runs the show on when managers are selected and when/if the articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate floor.

What's wrong with witness testimony? Are you afraid it will shine a negative light on what actually took place here? I thought the right wanted to get the Biden's on the stand, get the whistleblower on the stand or was that all just talk in an attempt to detract from the truth.

Have Mitch and Trump put on their big boy pants and step up to the challenge. Or you can continue to sit back and act like a little bitch.

[jimmyjazz 47203]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trump's assertion of executive privilege to preclude congressional testimony of any White House official is unprecedented and, in ordinary litigation, would be dismissed as frivolous.  It's obstructive.  He has vexatiously multiplied these proceedings.

I thought he didn't actually assert privilege?

[Biff Tannen 46168]

I'm actually shocked at how triggered the cult is.  The Senate isn't going to remove him.  Their orange god is still in power and will be until at least January 2021.  Not sure what all the fuss is about on their end.

[hayden_horn 11402]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I thought he didn't actually assert privilege?

he did not. he just said don't go. and they didn't.

[Biff Tannen 46168]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

he did not. he just said don't go. and they didn't.

Right and my understanding is that without this, there is nothing to take to the courts.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3555]

Wait a minute, it is the House's job to make the case for impeachment.  If they need these witnesses to testify so bad to make their case then why aren't they waiting for the courts to decide whether or not these witnesses must honor the subpoenas or not?  They can't say we don't feel like going through the legal system to make our case but we are going to force the Senate to wait until they go through the legal system to start the trial.  You don't vote on impeachment and then gather evidence.  You gather all your evidence and then you vote on impeachment.  To compare this to the justice system the House's role is to play the part of the grand jury and decide whether or not charges should be filed and the case taken to trial.  The Senate's role is to hold the trial.   You don't hold the trial first and then go through the process of a grand jury.  If you didn't have all the evidence you wanted then you shouldn't have been voting on whether or not to move forward with the process.

Then all the President has to do is let everyone testify. What's so hard about that? It clears him of everything, no obstruction of Congress and I'm sure that the compelling testimony of these witnesses will exonerate Trump.

Bottom line Trump and the GOP are either huge pussies or they actually have something to hide.

[kevwun 16438]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm actually shocked at how triggered the cult is.  The Senate isn't going to remove him.  Their orange god is still in power and will be until at least January 2021.  Not sure what all the fuss is about on their end.

They aren't getting to laugh at the libs.  It bothers them a lot.  

[wildcat09 29579]

38 minutes ago, Tailgate said:

Incredibly strong team of great people. Not sure anyone has the exact same political and/or religious beliefs and we all can have a different opinion.  Go figure.

Do y'all work on projects very greatly and strongly?

[jimmyjazz 47203]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Do y'all work on projects very greatly and strongly?

They're all perfect.

[EMAWesome 101]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They don't need the witnesses.  They have made the case.

It's only in response to "why haven't we heard from White House officials" that the issue of subpoenas is brought in.

Trump's assertion of executive privilege to preclude congressional testimony of any White House official is unprecedented and, in ordinary litigation, would be dismissed as frivolous.  It's obstructive.  He has vexatiously multiplied these proceedings.

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.

[Foosters 18280]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Right and my understanding is that without this, there is nothing to take to the courts.

You can always go to the courts when a properly served subpoena is ignored.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3555]

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.

How long have we been in court to get Trump's tax records?

[Doc Sam Beckett 5908]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm actually shocked at how triggered the cult is.  The Senate isn't going to remove him.  Their orange god is still in power and will be until at least January 2021.  Not sure what all the fuss is about on their end.

They do seem extremely worked up and concerned about the future of the Democrat party. Odd for a group that "doesn't support Donald." 

[wildcat09 29579]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

They're all perfect.

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.

[yoladu 4191]

12 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

UnFucking canny.  One for every.....

 

 

[atomheartbevo 90650]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What's to stop McConnell from changing the rules of the trial after she sends over the articles of impeachment?

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.

[yoladu 4191]

10 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, back to the two patriots who have affirmed their refusal to be impartial:  Mitch and Lindsey.

Once they take their oath of impartiality, what recourse is there?  None?  Even if such an oath could be considered "perjury" (or whatever) who would IN THEORY prosecute?  This DOJ?

I get it, this is politics, it's all for show, but I think it's reasonable to be disgusted by someone taking an oath they've already admitted they will not follow.

Those two should recuse.  They won't, but they should.  It would be nice if the average American were paying attention.

totally agree.. My initial thought was "wow, no one could be that cynical or hypocritical to stand and take that oath after publicly stating that they will not be impartial..

then, i stop and thought, oh.. "this is Mitch and Lindsey we are talking about here. Never mind."

[jimmyjazz 47203]

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.

[wildcat09 29579]

2 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.

Right. Drag the process out and more of those people will see that the entire GOP is complicit and is trying to cover up Trump's crimes. It's extremely obvious that the Republicans want to bury this quickly and move on. Don't let them.