The Impeachment Thread

#29,176
#29,176
Polling on impeachment since Horowitz testimony. Prior to that Yes had a small lead but never passed 50%. The numbers for Independents are even more skewed against.



Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 9.41.09 PM.png
 
#29,179
#29,179
luthervol said:
It's more than the phone call. It's the back channels headed by Rudy that made it clear. Trump may be a complete moron, but he does know how to break the law, especially when it comes to bribery and strong arming.
Click to expand...

though no one could testify that they were told by Rudy or anyone else that it was a quid pro quo. they just had that "feeling".
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and McDad
#29,181
#29,181
luthervol said:
It's more than the phone call. It's the back channels headed by Rudy that made it clear. Trump may be a complete moron, but he does know how to break the law.
Click to expand...

Where is your evidence? “I believe”, “I think”, “I feel”, “I heard 2nd hand info”, etc is not evidence. At least not credible evidence. You are a deranged little person.
 
#29,182
#29,182
I just read a transcript posted
luthervol said:
It's more than the phone call. It's the back channels headed by Rudy that made it clear. Trump may be a complete moron, but he does know how to break the law, especially when it comes to bribery and strong arming.
Click to expand...
I just read a transcript posted on PBS. Sondland said Guiliani had a qpq. And that he and Giuliani did not act improperly. He also said to Turner there's no evidence of qpq with Trump.
 
#29,184
#29,184
volinbham said:
though no one could testify that they were told by Rudy or anyone else that it was a quid pro quo. they just had that "feeling".
Click to expand...
That's the picture i am developing, too.

Sondland still seems to be inconsistent though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#29,185
#29,185
I think in the end , that 2nd article is going to be compared to what Harry Reid did in the senate , mistake wise . That one could cause something that hasn’t happened but rarely in our history to become something that happens often when one party controls the House or both House and Senate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#29,186
#29,186
0nelilreb said:
I think in the end , that 2nd article is going to be compared to what Harry Reid did in the senate , mistake wise . That one could cause something that hasn’t happened but rarely in our history to become something that happens often when one party controls the House or both House and Senate.
Click to expand...
Harry has a long history of not foreseeing what happens when the other side gets power. Now Mitch may have done the same thing with SC noms during election years but the timing on that has worked in his favor.
 
#29,187
#29,187
Alexander Hamilton said the greatest danger of impeachment would be depriving a president of due process and using impeachment politically by the party that has the most votes in the House. Sadly, that day has come. Today's Democrats are the Founders' worst nightmare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and AM64
#29,188
#29,188
luthervol said:
It's more than the phone call. It's the back channels headed by Rudy that made it clear. Trump may be a complete moron, but he does know how to break the law, especially when it comes to bribery and strong arming.
Click to expand...
How many assumptions did you just make? You are literally calling for the impeachment of a duly elected POTUS on your assumptions. And yes trump is blocking testimony. But you could fight that in the courts and are choosing not to. That’s on you.
 
#29,192
#29,192
zeppelin128 said:
I just scanned about 40 pages of this thread since I visited it last week. The discussion hasn't changed much since November.
Click to expand...

I could have summed it up in one post for you .... You suck , no you suck . Well he’s going to prison , no he’s not he’s getting re-elected . You are dumb , no you are . The end .
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, NurseGoodVol, ajvol01 and 2 others
#29,193
#29,193
zeppelin128 said:
I just scanned about 40 pages of this thread since I visited it last week. The discussion hasn't changed much since November.
Click to expand...

You know how i feel about politicians. I am constitutional libertarian in ideology.

Being as impartial as possible, it all seems to be on Sondland's credibility. The only moment in the transcript where he mentions the qpq is with Guiliani.
Also, that 2nd article of impeachment is weak af.
 
#29,195
#29,195
McDad said:
You know how i feel about politicians. I am constitutional libertarian in ideology.

Being as impartial as possible, it all seems to be on Sondland's credibility. The only moment in the transcript where he mentions the qpq is with Guiliani.
Also, that 2nd article of impeachment is weak af.
Click to expand...
I've stopped following it that closely, the outcome is obvious at this point. The House will vote to impeach, the Senate will acquit, and we will move on to something else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 0nelilreb and McDad
#29,196
#29,196
McDad said:
Double
Click to expand...
The second one is plain stupid. Basically, this is an impasse over executive privilege. The executive branch has every right to it. If the legislative branch has a problem with it, there is a judicial branch to sort it out. The legislative branch chose not to go the route of taking the executive branch to court , in the interest of doing the impeachment quickly before people got sick of it and lost interest. They are barking up the wrong tree here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL69, AM64, Orangeburst and 2 others
#29,198
#29,198
volfanhill said:
How many assumptions did you just make? You are literally calling for the impeachment of a duly elected POTUS on your assumptions. And yes trump is blocking testimony. But you could fight that in the courts and are choosing not to. That’s on you.
Click to expand...
Just curious, but what do you think has more gravitas: replacing a duly elected president with an on-the-ballot Vice President or some random dude spending the rest of his life in prison? (Serious question, no snark intended).
 
#29,199
#29,199
volfanhill said:
How many assumptions did you just make? You are literally calling for the impeachment of a duly elected POTUS on your assumptions. And yes trump is blocking testimony. But you could fight that in the courts and are choosing not to. That’s on you.
Click to expand...
They would lose in court, and it would probably take until after the election. It is implied in the Constitution under the structure of separation of powers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL69 and AM64
#29,200
#29,200
1972 Grad said:
They would lose in court, and it would probably take until after the election. It is implied in the Constitution under the structure of separation of powers.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon has already held that the constitutional responsibilities of the other branches supersede executive privilege. I’d be pretty surprised if Trump won. So far he’s like 0-5 on similarly frivolous executive privilege claims so it’s sort of like picking the winner in the fourth quarter.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top