impeachment inquiry hearings thread

burntorangebongos · October 31, 2019

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Courageous Will Hurd bravely voted right along with Nunes, Jordan, and Gaetz today. This needed to be said.

Maybe he is keeping his powder dry and going along with his party on this since it was a forgone conclusion?

Chad Fuck · October 31, 2019

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Courageous Will Hurd bravely voted right along with Nunes, Jordan, and Gaetz today. This needed to be said.

So did all the retiring GOP Reps. What the hell, you'd figure some of them wouldn't want to go down as Flakes. Yet there they all were, slurping that orange mushroom until the end.

kevwun · October 31, 2019

Hurd's not running, so he was clear to do what was right. But he didn't because he's a Republican. Party Uber Alles.

washparkhorn · October 31, 2019

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You're calling foul on process and completely ignoring the substance of the impeachment inquiry. I posted last page about it.

Do you not believe the sworn testimony of multiple military officers, combat veterans, and career diplomats that were appointed to their position BY trump and have been corroborated by paper trails? And you instead believe an unqualified hotel magnate that donated a million bucks to trump's inauguration to get the ambassador position?

The difficult aspect of the allegations is the sanctioned statecraft called diplomacy - where soft and hard threats are used regularly by the USG. Add in the fact our government LEO's use foreign agencies regularly and I suspect you see the difficulty calling one behavior a high crime or misdemeanor and the same behavior by another as business as usual. The partisan nature of the inquiry mirrors what happened with Clinton. As I have argued in the past, the impeachment of Clinton led him to react in ways that were not altogether good for this nation - especially wag the dog type military adventures.

The partisan nature of the attack is what troubles me. We live in a fractured nation - seething with anger and hatred. I suggest we all tone down the rhetoric. We do not want it to boil over.

henrygandorf · October 31, 2019

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Courageous Will Hurd bravely voted right along with Nunes, Jordan, and Gaetz today. This needed to be said.

to the surprise of....no one.

most of us have been saying this the whole time, but staying along party lines makes it easy to stay along party lines. it's a circular excuse and gives them all cover. same will happen in the senate.

it was also clear that mccarthy was going to mention in his speech that the only people that crossed the line were dems. this wasn't a coincidence.

washparkhorn · October 31, 2019

15 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

ok?

trump won't be removed based on a partisan vote either.

Trump will not be convicted by the Senate. Not a chance in hell. So why are we tearing apart the nation? What is the goal if removal is extremely unlikely? Wouldn't looking at the 2020 race and the candidates be a more productive exercise? Especially if removal of Trump is the most pressing issue in your mind?

I think this nation has far greater problems than Trump.

HenryJames · October 31, 2019

5 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The difficult aspect of the allegations is the sanctioned statecraft called diplomacy - where soft and hard threats are used regularly by the USG.

Yeah, it's not diplomacy.

Pig Bellmont · October 31, 2019

Impeachment was always a political construct - especially before the 12th Amendment was adopted. Impeachment could have resulted in the President’s political rival taking over rather than the VP from the President’s party. So spare me the histrionics about the founding fathers wanting the process to be apolitical.

The “undo an election” bullshit also gives me tired head. Attempting to hold the President accountable for bribery, corruption and other high crimes isn’t about 2016 but his conduct after. This is the remedy or it wouldn’t be written into the constitution. We don’t have to wait four years to oust a crook.

jimmyjazz · October 31, 2019

7 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The difficult aspect of the allegations is the sanctioned statecraft called diplomacy - where soft and hard threats are used regularly by the USG. Add in the fact our government LEO's use foreign agencies regularly and I suspect you see the difficulty calling one behavior a high crime or misdemeanor and the same behavior by another as business as usual. The partisan nature of the inquiry mirrors what happened with Clinton. As I have argued in the past, the impeachment of Clinton led him to react in ways that were not altogether good for this nation - especially wag the dog type military adventures.

The partisan nature of the attack is what troubles me. We live in a fractured nation - seething with anger and hatred. I suggest we all tone down the rhetoric. We do not want it to boil over.

The best way for you to tone down your rhetoric, Comrade, would be to run your posts through Grammarly and then cut your word count by another 50%.

OK, 99%.

wildcat09 · October 31, 2019

44 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Allow me to quote Joe Biden and Congressperson Nadler:

Biden: "It would have been wrong for Richard Nixon to have been removed from office based upon a purely partisan vote. No president should be removed from office merely because one party enjoys a commanding lead in either house of the Congress …

It is our constitutional duty to give the president the benefit of the doubt on the facts … Brett Kavanaugh, who was associate independent counsel in Ken Starr’s office for three years, put this argument most succinctly in a recent article he published in the Georgetown Law Journal: ‘The President is not simply another individual. He is unique. He is the embodiment of the federal government and the head of a political party. If he is to be removed, the entire government likely would suffer, [and] the military or economic consequences to the nation could be severe’ …

“To remove a president is to decapitate another branch and to undermine the independence necessary for it to fulfill its constitutional role … To remove a duly-elected president clashes with democratic principles in a way that simply has no constitutional parallel …

“Federalist 65 also sounds a warning – again, it is a warning that has been invoked over and over again – that impeachments inevitably risk being hijacked by partisan political forces …

“Given the essentially anti-democratic nature of impeachment and the great dangers inherent in the too-ready exercise of that power, impeachment has no place in our system of constitutional democracy except as an extreme measure – reserved for breaches of the public trust by a president who so violates his official duties, misuses his official powers or places our system of government at such risk that our constitutional government is put in immediate danger by his continuing to serve out the term to which the people of the United States elected him …

“For one branch to remove the head of a co-equal branch unavoidably harms our constitutional structure …

“I cautioned that we remember Alice’s plight when the Queen declared ‘sentence first, verdict afterwards’ …

“The country is not well served when either policy disagreements or personal animosities drive the process …

“I am here today to call for bipartisanship in the impeachment process. It is a concept many will say they agree with. But actions speak louder than words.

“The Framers of the Constitution knew that the greatest danger associated with impeachment was the presence of partisan factions that could dictate the outcome.

“It is clear from the debates and from the commentaries on the Constitutional Convention that the Framers were concerned that anything less than bipartisanship could, and would, do great damage to our form of government. They knew that to contemplate an action as profound as undoing a popular election requires at a minimum that members of both parties find that the alleged wrong is grave enough to overturn the will of the majority of the American people.

“The Framers also understood the sentiment expressed nearly 200 years later by Congresswoman Barbara Jordan during the impeachment proceedings of Richard Nixon. She said, ‘it is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision’ …

“In the case of an impeachment, fair means bipartisan … Once the election is held, our leaders hold office until the next election. It is simply antithetical to our constitutional democracy to use impeachment to overturn an election on partisan grounds. It violates the independence of the presidency and it usurps the people’s voice …

“Permit one branch of government to subjugate another to its partisan wishes, and you permit the kind of concentration of power that can lead to tyranny. So the system the Framers established is utterly incompatible with the idea that sharp partisan divisions could be sufficient to impeach …

“Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction …

“Look back at the Nixon impeachment. It took on legitimacy when a core of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee were moved by the nature of President Nixon’s offenses to break party ranks and vote for articles of impeachment … There was bipartisan consensus that what Nixon did was impeachable …

“Bipartisanship should not wait until the matter reaches the Senate chamber …

“The Constitution provides that ‘the Senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments.’ Some consider this provision to impose a duty upon the Senate to try or adjudicate all impeachments. Even if the Constitution imposes such a duty, the Senate has not understood this duty to adjudicate as necessarily requiring a formal trial. There is precedent for the Senate considering dispositive motions that would allow the Senate to render a judgment without holding a trial.”

And Nadler -

“Benjamin Franklin called impeachment, ‘a substitute for assassination’ … The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in Congress of the absolute necessity …

We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people …

Nixon deserved impeachment; Clinton did not.

What you're saying is that it would not warrant impeachment if Trump started having his political opponents killed so long as most of the GOP refused to publicly oppose the killings.

wildcat09 · October 31, 2019

14 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Maybe he is keeping his powder dry and going along with his party on this since it was a forgone conclusion?

Hurd is trying to keep from becoming persona non grata among all of his GOP contacts so that he can enjoy a lucrative lobbying career once he leaves Congress.

cactusflinthead · October 31, 2019

10 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The difficult aspect of the allegations is the sanctioned statecraft called diplomacy - where soft and hard threats are used regularly by the USG. Add in the fact our government LEO's use foreign agencies regularly and I suspect you see the difficulty calling one behavior a high crime or misdemeanor and the same behavior by another as business as usual. The partisan nature of the inquiry mirrors what happened with Clinton. As I have argued in the past, the impeachment of Clinton led him to react in ways that were not altogether good for this nation - especially wag the dog type military adventures.

The partisan nature of the attack is what troubles me. We live in a fractured nation - seething with anger and hatred. I suggest we all tone down the rhetoric. We do not want it to boil over.

This is not in any way similar, much less mirroring the Clinton impeachment.

Hugo Stiglitz · October 31, 2019

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

What you're saying is that it would not warrant impeachment if Trump started having his political opponents killed so long as most of the GOP refused to publicly oppose the killings.

Yeah, the logic here is Fascism is okay as long as the Senate will never vote to convict. Just focus on the next election that will totally be free and fair!

washparkhorn · October 31, 2019

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What you're saying is that it would not warrant impeachment if Trump started having his political opponents killed so long as most of the GOP refused to publicly oppose the killings.

Not really.

washparkhorn · October 31, 2019

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, the logic here is Fascism is okay as long as the Senate will never vote to convict. Just focus on the next election that will totally be free and fair!

Nope. Not even close.

jimmyjazz · October 31, 2019

Really.

washparkhorn · October 31, 2019

I don't think many of you know what fascism is. That is not encouraging.

Pescado_Rojo · October 31, 2019

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Hurd is trying to keep from becoming persona non grata among all of his GOP contacts so that he can enjoy a lucrative lobbying career once he leaves Congress.

Lobbying career, or run at statewide office.

lemonlime · October 31, 2019

11 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Trump will not be convicted by the Senate. Not a chance in hell. So why are we tearing apart the nation? What is the goal if removal is extremely unlikely? Wouldn't looking at the 2020 race and the candidates be a more productive exercise? Especially if removal of Trump is the most pressing issue in your mind?

I think this nation has far greater problems than Trump.

Yes. this nation has far greater problems than Trump. We have his many venal enablers, the GOP, and its cult like followers.

And the nation is being torn apart by a racist, misogynist, nativist political party whose leader called half the country "human scum," is using our tax dollars and our employees in support of his political campaign, and is putting brown children in camps. But it's inquiring about his crimes that's tearing the country apart. JFC.

Judge Roybeanbag · October 31, 2019

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I don't think many of you know what fascism is. That is not encouraging.

I don't think some of you care about blatant corruption, criminal behavior and abuse of power. That is really not encouraging. You're suggesting we just ignore it and it will go away?

Hugo Stiglitz · October 31, 2019

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I don't think many of you know what fascism is. That is not encouraging.

I know who Mussolini was and Trump is more Mussolini than any president we’ve had.

wildcat09 · October 31, 2019

Just now, washparkhorn said:

Not really.

Yes, really. That's exactly what you're saying. You're saying the legitimacy of impeaching a President depends on the level of support impeachment receives from members of that President's own party. Own your words.

Captainant · October 31, 2019

10 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The difficult aspect of the allegations is the sanctioned statecraft called diplomacy - where soft and hard threats are used regularly by the USG. Add in the fact our government LEO's use foreign agencies regularly and I suspect you see the difficulty calling one behavior a high crime or misdemeanor and the same behavior by another as business as usual. The partisan nature of the inquiry mirrors what happened with Clinton. As I have argued in the past, the impeachment of Clinton led him to react in ways that were not altogether good for this nation - especially wag the dog type military adventures.

The partisan nature of the attack is what troubles me. We live in a fractured nation - seething with anger and hatred. I suggest we all tone down the rhetoric. We do not want it to boil over.

What trump and guiliani were trying to do was NOT sanctioned. It was not flowing through normal channels, and was in fact acting against our nation's strategic interests abroad. That's not my opinion. It's the opinion of the man who pompeo called out of retirement and asked him to run the diplomacy because he understood our nation's position so well.

The nature of this issue is also far more than just the bad faith actions. His admin (and the office of the president itself) have abused classified systems to hide information from the public in the furtherance of deceiving the public and public oversight. It's a coverup AND a crime.

And for fucks sake, stop comparing this to the clintons. Trump withheld congressionally approved and designated military aid, which to be clear here is literally subverting the will of the people by refusing to comply with duly passed legislation, in the effort of pushing an ally that's literally at war with russia to create a news story about his political opponent. The bare facts of the offense alleged (and testified to by trump appointed officials) are damning and concerning.

But hey, when you can't attack the facts, you attack process, right?

jimmyjazz · October 31, 2019

3 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Lobbying career, or run at statewide office.

I hear Chairman of the Railroad Commission is a nice little payday.

washparkhorn · October 31, 2019

The human scum v. deplorables division is the seething edge of economic insecurity. The have-nots v. the have-nots Circus. Meanwhile, the .0001 percent are raking in the dough while people are focused on this circus.

Degenerate Gardner · October 31, 2019

4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

The “undo an election” bullshit also gives me tired head. Attempting to hold the President accountable for bribery, corruption and other high crimes isn’t about 2016 but his conduct after. This is the remedy or it wouldn’t be written into the constitution. We don’t have to wait four years to oust a crook.

This bugs me too. Elected representatives holding Trump accountable for fundamentally undemocratic, chronically corrupt behaviors via legal means should not be objectionable.

hayden_horn · October 31, 2019

17 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Trump will not be convicted by the Senate. Not a chance in hell. So why are we tearing apart the nation? What is the goal if removal is extremely unlikely? Wouldn't looking at the 2020 race and the candidates be a more productive exercise? Especially if removal of Trump is the most pressing issue in your mind?

I think this nation has far greater problems than Trump.

it's somewhat telling that you are only worried about democratic partisanship.

the goal is to highlight the corruption of the president of the united states of america, and to also force the senate republicans to the choice of supporting corruption out of partisan loyalty or for them to do the right thing and remove this piece of shit from office.

i think it is rather important for senate republicans to put their names out there in support of naked, visible corruption, if for nothing else, the sake of history taking down their names as people who valued party criminality over the best result for our nation.

and the democratic primaries are going ahead as planned. as it turns out, those running for 2020 are engaging in productive exercises like town halls and debates, all at he same time as the impeachment inquiry progresses. somehow these things are happening simultaneously! it's a goddamned miracle.

washparkhorn · October 31, 2019

3 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I don't think some of you care about blatant corruption, criminal behavior and abuse of power. That is really not encouraging. You're suggesting we just ignore it and it will go away?

Nope. Find a crime - like we found in Watergate. Explain it. Show why it represents a fundamental break between what voters wanted to happen in this Presidency and what was delivered. Show that it is illegal and we have prosecuted and removed others for the same conduct.

We are talking about taking the vote away from the citizens and removing their selection (using the rules of selection we use in Presidential elections). Impeachment should be rare and for the most heinous abuses of power. We are not there yet.

henrygandorf · October 31, 2019

16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What you're saying is that it would not warrant impeachment if Trump started having his political opponents killed so long as most of the GOP refused to publicly oppose the killings.

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, the logic here is Fascism is okay as long as the Senate will never vote to convict. Just focus on the next election that will totally be free and fair!

you guys are obviously missing the point.

he can kill all the opponents he wants. and he can be as fascist as he wants. but only for four years. that's the limit our forefathers allowed for fascism or politically motivated murders. get it straight.

the dems have 15+ people running for president. adam schiff is not one of them. neither is pelosi. i think they can walk and chew gum at the same time. i just hope they don't hijack the president's agenda of...(checks notes)...infrastructure?

LongestHorn · October 31, 2019

Is a hummer a rare and heinous abuse of power, or just a hummer?

jimmyjazz · October 31, 2019

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

Nope. Find a crime - like we found in Watergate. Explain it. Show why it represents a fundamental break between what voters wanted to happen in this Presidency and what was delivered.

Easy. Multiple counts of obstruction of justice, election tampering, you name it.

Quote

Show that it is illegal and we have prosecuted and removed others for the same conduct.

Whoa Nellie. "Removed" is a high bar. Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. That standard is good enough. You lose.

washparkhorn · October 31, 2019

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

it's somewhat telling that you are only worried about democratic partisanship.

the goal is to highlight the corruption of the president of the united states of america, and to also force the senate republicans to the choice of supporting corruption out of partisan loyalty or for them to do the right thing and remove this piece of shit from office.

i think it is rather important for senate republicans to put their names out there in support of naked, visible corruption, if for nothing else, the sake of history taking down their names as people who valued party criminality over the best result for our nation.

and the democratic primaries are going ahead as planned. as it turns out, those running for 2020 are engaging in productive exercises like town halls and debates, all at he same time as the impeachment inquiry progresses. somehow these things are happening simultaneously! it's a goddamned miracle.

I am voting for Bernie in the primary. I am tired of a fixed game that gave us a choice between Hillary and Trump. We have better candidates out there who will govern for the people. Defending Democratic Inc. or Republicorp is the distraction the powers that be want you all to focus on. If they have you in a D or R pen, you are controllable and will overlook the systematic robbing of our economy. We all need to take off the D or R blinders. All of us. If you think you don't have them, try harder.

Pescado_Rojo · October 31, 2019

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Nope. Find a crime - like we found in Watergate. Explain it. Show why it represents a fundamental break between what voters wanted to happen in this Presidency and what was delivered. Show that it is illegal and we have prosecuted and removed others for the same conduct.

We are talking about taking the vote away from the citizens and removing their selection (using the rules of selection we use in Presidential elections). Impeachment should be rare and for the most heinous abuses of power. We are not there yet.

Hugo Stiglitz · October 31, 2019

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Impeachment should be rare and for the most heinous abuses of power. We are not there yet.

Did you read the Mueller Report?

Pig Bellmont · October 31, 2019

wildcat09 · October 31, 2019

I'm super confused, is this the original washpark back at last?

CowboyFred · October 31, 2019

shaggy trolls were at least clever and didn't repeat the same talking points that multiple other posters have already proven wrong or are just plain dumb...I miss shaggy

Edited October 31, 2019 by CowboyFred

wildcat09 · October 31, 2019

4 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Nope. Find a crime - like we found in Watergate. Explain it. Show why it represents a fundamental break between what voters wanted to happen in this Presidency and what was delivered. Show that it is illegal and we have prosecuted and removed others for the same conduct.

We are talking about taking the vote away from the citizens and removing their selection (using the rules of selection we use in Presidential elections). Impeachment should be rare and for the most heinous abuses of power. We are not there yet.

What's worse than illegally freezing aid money that has already been appropriated by Congress in order to extort a foreign country to interfere in an American election?

Longhornfan1024 · October 31, 2019

28 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Trump will not be convicted by the Senate. Not a chance in hell. So why are we tearing apart the nation? What is the goal if removal is extremely unlikely? Wouldn't looking at the 2020 race and the candidates be a more productive exercise? Especially if removal of Trump is the most pressing issue in your mind?

I think this nation has far greater problems than Trump.

The tearing apart isn't happening because House Democrats are performing their constitutional duty. The tearing apart is happening because the President consistent acts to undermine the Rule of Law, breaks the law, lies to the American people, and the Republicans in Congress continue to support him in his actions and lie on his behalf.

washparkhorn · October 31, 2019

1 minute ago, LongestHorn said:

Is a hummer a rare and heinous abuse of power, or just a hummer?

A fucking act of infidelity, an abuse of power by a supervisory employer, and the act of getting one's rocks off. It was not an impeachable offense. And the investigation was flawed by a statute that we have now overturned for being overbroad. No one should have a roving prosecutor examining every move the person makes. The precipitating act must be criminal and show a gross abuse of power that all would agree warrants removal. If Y is just following X's path, it is selective prosecution to only punish Y, while giving nodding approval to X. That is a corrupt process and undemocratic.

hayden_horn · October 31, 2019

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

I am voting for Bernie in the primary. I am tired of a fixed game that gave us a choice between Hillary and Trump. We have better candidates out there who will govern for the people. Defending Democratic Inc. or Republicorp is the distraction the powers that be want you all to focus on. If they have you in a D or R pen, you are controllable and will overlook the systematic robbing of our economy. We all need to take off the D or R blinders. All of us. If you think you don't have them, try harder.

my blinders are far more of an anti-trump and increasingly more of an anti-republican blinders than any other kind. i've hesitantly thrown my lot into the democratic hat for right now, and will remain there until republicans can regain some semblance of credibility, because that's all i've got. but i'm going in with my eyes wide open, and i won't be hesitant to be critical of those i support as well as those who i do not support. it's my philosophy that those we support should garner most of our criticism.

i'm not a fan of bernard. i don't understand why he can run as a democrat while acting as an "independent" in congress. but whatever.

henrygandorf · October 31, 2019

13 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The human scum v. deplorables division is the seething edge of economic insecurity. The have-nots v. the have-nots Circus. Meanwhile, the .0001 percent are raking in the dough while people are focused on this circus.

human scum = what trump called republicans who disagreed with him

deplorables = what hillary clinton called republicans who supported trump

anyone else picking up a pattern here?

washparkhorn · October 31, 2019

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What's worse than illegally freezing aid money that has already been appropriated by Congress in order to extort a foreign country to interfere in an American election?

Foreign LEO's aid our Nation regularly. See tax evasion and foreign bank accounts.

If Trump's goal can be reasonably stated as seeking to end the Ukraine's interference in our elections through their acts leading up to 2016, I am not sure that an abuse of power. Presuming he had an objective predicate to assert a charge against the Ukraine for aiding the Clinton campaign, that is not an impeachable offense. This brouhaha started somewhere. Air it out and let the disinfectant of sunshine destroy the corrupt - no matter who is implicated - D or R.

henrygandorf · October 31, 2019

12 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Nope. Find a crime - like we found in Watergate. Explain it. Show why it represents a fundamental break between what voters wanted to happen in this Presidency and what was delivered. Show that it is illegal and we have prosecuted and removed others for the same conduct.

We are talking about taking the vote away from the citizens and removing their selection (using the rules of selection we use in Presidential elections). Impeachment should be rare and for the most heinous abuses of power. We are not there yet.

there's a lot of evidence that he's already cheated to win an election. now he's abusing his power to do it again. he's not even covering it up this time. republicans aren't even quibbling about the facts anymore.

most murderers weren't murderers before they killed somebody. sorry there isn't a precedent for this.

Texas Jeff · October 31, 2019

Also from Federalist 65 (66 talks about the Senate two-thirds rule to convict)

Quote

"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?"

Hamilton was smart enough to realize that impeachment would always be partisan, but thought enough of the impartiality of the Senate to give them the power to convict, so long as two-thirds of the Senate was on board and the Chief Justice was empowered to see over the proceedings. He argued that it was tough to find any reasonable way to handle impeachments, but this system was reasonably sound and there were many other choices that were worse. If he were alive today he would think we were all morons.

RomaVicta · October 31, 2019

56 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Allow me to quote Joe Biden and Congressperson Nadler:

Biden: "It would have been wrong for Richard Nixon to have been removed from office based upon a purely partisan vote. No president should be removed from office merely because one party enjoys a commanding lead in either house of the Congress …

If you're the old washpark, I'm disappointed in these posts.

As for the above, we have a different world of political parties now. Although the hate engine created by the right and exploited by the GOPs over the last 3 decades has described their political opponents as enemies of America, the GOPs have made themselves that very thing. The Dems and libs have never been enemies or outside of the USA. Recall Reagan saying that the Dems had gone so far left that they'd left the country? There's your beginning to the poison poured into the waters of political discourse.

The GOP has taken hate-the-other rhetoric to fascist levels and don't even recognize it in themselves. Why? Because they've been lying for decades that it's the other side that seeks dictatorial rule. They've convinced 60 million Americans that this is true.

This was not the GOP of Nixon's day. His was a wicked crew, but the party chose to spit some of that out. Now the GOP occupies the same evil skin only worse. This hate is all that remains of the GOP. Creating and exploiting hate typifies a group of sociopaths calling themselves the party of Lincoln. LINCOLN! Every GOP out to be caned down main street for sullying that great name.

Anybody who stands with Trump stands with selfish disregard for anything that benefits anyone other than themselves. It's the evil tree that grew from the roots of seeing oneself as only a taxpayer and not a citizen. Fiscal responsibility is wise. Greed is a vice. GOPs are at the very best greedy. At their worst they are anti-Constitution and willfully cruel in their quest for wealth and power. They may very well have set the groundwork for the end of the republic.

Neither party was like that in Nixon's day. You could believe at least some part of each party and partisan had some element of concern for the general well being and the well being of the USA. Not now.

If someone machine-gunned every GOP cunt that gathered to speak after the vote, I could not care less. They have made themselves actual enemies to my country. If Trump's backers will pledge violence in the name of Donald Trump, I comfortably welcome the same for any person who makes himself a danger to the United States.

I write this coldly. I won't regret it. I have no sympathy for those grabbing for power and wealth as 90% of the rest of us will be left in a disaster area.

washparkhorn · October 31, 2019

8 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i'm not a fan of bernard. i don't understand why he can run as a democrat while acting as an "independent" in congress. but whatever.

I respect your opinion. I am curious why - beyond the distinction between political philosophy and political party. I understand that beef, but accepting Dem, Inc. suggests approval of their nefarious tactics in determining a nominee. But I am more for Bernie because of his concrete aspirations for this nation - and those losing the war in this economy. But Bernie is for another thread.

Edited October 31, 2019 by washparkhorn

lemonlime · October 31, 2019

21 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The human scum v. deplorables division is the seething edge of economic insecurity. The have-nots v. the have-nots Circus. Meanwhile, the .0001 percent are raking in the dough while people are focused on this circus.

The circus is quite literally killing people. See brown people at a Wal-Mart in Texas or Jewish congregants at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills right now. Apparently being angry about crimes, corruption, and a political party that is inciting violence to hold onto power is being distracted by the circus. If so, I'm distracted, and I won't be forgetting the circus.

DigglerontheHoof · October 31, 2019

4 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Foreign LEO's aid our Nation regularly. See tax evasion and foreign bank accounts.

If Trump's goal can be reasonably stated as seeking to end the Ukraine's interference in our elections through their acts leading up to 2016, I am not sure that an abuse of power. Presuming he had an objective predicate to assert a charge against the Ukraine for aiding the Clinton campaign, that is not an impeachable offense. This brouhaha started somewhere. Air it out and let the disinfectant of sunshine destroy the corrupt - no matter who is implicated - D or R.

That's not what he was doing and you fucking know it. He was coercing a foreign government to actively interfere in our elections in the form of a bullshit investigation into Biden. Quit lying.

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? · October 31, 2019

20 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

. Show why it represents a fundamental break between what voters wanted to happen in this Presidency and what was delivered.

Heh. I'll concede we can't do this.

Sign In

impeachment inquiry hearings thread

Recommended Posts

burntorangebongos 10752

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexasEd

Paul Wesley

Tailgate

Posted Images

Chad Fuck 17725

Link to comment

Share on other sites

kevwun 15842

Link to comment

Share on other sites

washparkhorn 9939

Link to comment

Share on other sites

henrygandorf 29194

Link to comment

Share on other sites

washparkhorn 9939

Link to comment

Share on other sites

HenryJames 66151

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pig Bellmont 8719

Link to comment

Share on other sites

jimmyjazz 46055

Link to comment

Share on other sites

wildcat09 29365

Link to comment

Share on other sites

wildcat09 29365

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cactusflinthead 27601

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Link to comment

Share on other sites

washparkhorn 9939

Link to comment

Share on other sites

washparkhorn 9939

Link to comment

Share on other sites

jimmyjazz 46055

Link to comment

Share on other sites

washparkhorn 9939

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pescado_Rojo 19427

Link to comment

Share on other sites

lemonlime 5503

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Judge Roybeanbag 11819

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Link to comment

Share on other sites

wildcat09 29365

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Captainant 27723

Link to comment