The Impeachment Thread

Ahh, so you're a mind reader now? I guess that's easier than addressing the actual subject.

The actual subject has been addressed no fewer than three times.

I don’t need to be a mind reader.

I was here when the “problem” was that republicans couldn’t participate,

then it was the closed door hearings,

then it was that the president didn’t have representation,

then they weren’t letting Stefanik ask questions,

and half a dozen other cheap political stunts and outright lies, in between.

That’s not mind reading it’s just having the common sense to not be Yosemite Sam, crossing Buggs Bunny’s next line every single time until you walk off a cliff.
 
Readin' iz hard!



So there was a transcriber in the room and on the call? If so these weeks of idiots testifying about what they “believe”, “think”, and “feel” has been a complete waste of time. You guys better hope TDS isn’t terminal.
 
His cousin is a FR at TennTech, and did AP in HS in GA and got squat out of it. The only thing he got was reduced out of state tuition for being within 250 miles of campus. Got no concessions for being Salutatorian at his school in AP classes. (He screwed up though insisting he only wanted to come here. AS Salutatorian, he could have gone free on scholarship anywhere in GA). $800 a month private HS over in Covington (Peachtree Academy) and is so ill prepared for college. and college life. There's tons of advantages in college within the state you get your diploma. In TN now, if you are a resident, and obtain a TN HS diploma, the first two years at CC are free. He is doing his DE at Vol State, which has a transfer agreement with several in state universities. he will have no trouble transferring into TTU, and will have half his freshman courses complete by the time he graduates HS. Actually thought he did well respectively since he is only a JR. It was his HS courses this term that pissed me off. lol. Smart kid, but lazy on the studying. He is 4 points or more higher than state average in all his year end testing, and scored a 20 composite on his first ACT last spring as a Soph having not seen two years yet of Math and English and stuff on the ACT. And a 2 sport athlete to boot. I wear him out about playing two sports. Do that, and show a 25 on ACT with a 3.0 or better and you can do what you want.

Edit: He is not doing AP classes as yet, but he does have the college path curriculum. Actually, his advisor last year (biology Teacher and currently now MS vice principal), whom we got to church with, told us there's more to HS and life than AP. He put his son in AP Math and almost killed him with all the extra work. said it wasn't worth it, and just make sure to stay n the college path program and focus on doing well there.
I have a son who is a junior also.
 
Need 2/3 "jurors" vote to remove from office, correct? It's the standard of being considered "guilty". We have differences in subject, it appears. What are you referring to?
Yes, I already said that was correct.

I’m saying it’s not the same thing as “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “preponderance of the evidence,” which are standards of proof that are supposed to be applied by jurors on criminal/civil cases to determine what verdict they support.

You guys were talking about standards of proof and I asked you what you felt the “standard” was for impeachment. My apologies, maybe I wasn’t clear, I meant the standard of proof.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RikidyBones
I have a son who is a junior also.

And holy crap. I'm pretty sure we established you are atleast 4-6 years older than me based on our dates at TTU. I thought I was too old for that crap when we had him. It was demanding being in my mid forties and up during his "active" years.
 
So there was a transcriber in the room and on the call? If so these weeks of idiots testifying about what they “believe”, “think”, and “feel” has been a complete waste of time. You guys better hope TDS isn’t terminal.

Looks like McConnell Team Trump is going to duck having to put the people who actually know on the stand. As bad as the House inquiry was, the optics of rejecting any witnesses by the Senate is in orders of magnitude worse.

I mean we all knew that the votes on both sides were a foregone conclusion, but damn. I thought at a minimum they'd want to exonerate him - hard to do that if these bozos are out there admitting to not even being fair.
 
No. I've seen your "objective" responses many times. One more beer won't make you prettier.

I think you just don’t want to have to list a string of easily identifiable political stunts by the IC Republicans, which would be subject to ridicule.

Also, I don’t know that I’ve ever claimed to be objective, unless I was making a statement that was objectively correct (I.e. the contents of some law or document). I’m not a liberal/democrat, that doesn’t make me objective.
 
Yes, I already said that was correct.

I’m saying it’s not the same thing as “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “preponderance of the evidence,” which are standards of proof that are supposed to be applied by jurors on criminal/civil cases to determine what verdict they support.

You guys were talking about standards of proof and I asked you what you felt the “standard” was for impeachment. My apologies, maybe I wasn’t clear, I meant the standard of proof.
ah I see. No that's my fault. I dont think that's technically addressed in the constitution. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally, I would prefer criminal standard be used. Anything less has a very bad potential.
 
What “didn’t look good” about the way he ran it?
This dude has a long history. Remember when he lied about the Russia investigation? He said he had proof that Donald Trump secretly colluded with the Russians to steal 2016. Still waiting on that to materialize.

The way this impeachment investigation has been ran from start to finish, the fact that there was communication and coordination between Schiff and the whistleblower before all of this began, and then Schiff lying about said communication. The fact he's repeatedly blocked the GOP from speaking to the whistleblower and key witnesses in the trial (Which is kind of damn important in an impeachment inquiry).

That doesn't look very good now does it?
 
I think you just don’t want to have to list a string of easily identifiable political stunts by the IC Republicans, which would be subject to ridicule.

Also, I don’t know that I’ve ever claimed to be objective, unless I was making a statement that was objectively correct (I.e. the contents of some law or document). I’m not a liberal/democrat, that doesn’t make me objective.


The unobjective part, is that same list can be made of Dems and just as easily ridiculed.
 
ah I see. No that's my fault. I dont think that's technically addressed in the constitution. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally, I would prefer criminal standard be used. Anything less has a very bad potential.

You’re correct, it’s not in the Constitution. The criminal standard seems to be the consensus, here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
Looks like McConnell Team Trump is going to duck having to put the people who actually know on the stand. As bad as the House inquiry was, the optics of rejecting any witnesses by the Senate is in orders of magnitude worse.

I mean we all knew that the votes on both sides were a foregone conclusion, but damn. I thought at a minimum they'd want to exonerate him - hard to do that if these bozos are out there admitting to not even being fair.
I don't understand the peripheral discussion on optics, polls, election predictions, etc. It seems none of that really matters. The safe money is on impeached + remain in office. It doesn't seem that this has swayed anyone on their personal politics or their preferred candidate for 2020.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
Looks like McConnell Team Trump is going to duck having to put the people who actually know on the stand. As bad as the House inquiry was, the optics of rejecting any witnesses by the Senate is in orders of magnitude worse.

I mean we all knew that the votes on both sides were a foregone conclusion, but damn. I thought at a minimum they'd want to exonerate him - hard to do that if these bozos are out there admitting to not even being fair.


The optics of having Bolton in the Senate chamber testifying as to Trump having sought a quid pro quo for US military aid, with the Chief Justice sitting there, and everyone listening to Bolton with rapt attention and realizing that Trump is indeed a complete crook, would be absolutely awful for Trump and the GOP, generally. It would be even worse to have Giuliani up there, because he'd just go on some tirade and convince everyone that Trump is out of his mind for paying any attention to Rudy.

McConnell is right. End this quickly, before people start paying close attention.
 
And holy crap. I'm pretty sure we established you are atleast 4-6 years older than me based on our dates at TTU. I thought I was too old for that crap when we had him. It was demanding being in my mid forties and up during his "active" years.
LOL....True. I was 43 when he was born. Unexpected. My wife always wanted a 3rd and I said sure but it has to be before I'm 40. Well that didn't happened and we thought, why have a vasectomy, it seems redundant.
I learned my lesson and had one after our 3rd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
I don't feel comfortable saying. It's a public school in a district northeast of Atlanta.

It's safe. We think your off, but we're not going after your kids. lol. Unless you don't want us to know you possibly live in some posh areas. Would destroy income equality and all. But, anyhoo, NE could be anywhere from Tucker around to Buckhead and Alpharetta. A lot of good schools around there.
 
The optics of having Bolton in the Senate chamber testifying as to Trump having sought a quid pro quo for US military aid, with the Chief Justice sitting there, and everyone listening to Bolton with rapt attention and realizing that Trump is indeed a complete crook, would be absolutely awful for Trump and the GOP, generally. It would be even worse to have Giuliani up there, because he'd just go on some tirade and convince everyone that Trump is out of his mind for paying any attention to Rudy.

McConnell is right. End this quickly, before people start paying close attention.

I simply can't fathom how even the mouthiest breathers of the trump army would be duped by this dodge.

Blaming the dems for not calling on first hand witnesses and then straight up ducking calling first hand witnesses while Trump is out there saying they should be called? It's like an Onion article playing out in real time.
 
LOL....True. I was 43 when he was born. Unexpected. My wife always wanted a 3rd and I said sure but it has to be before I'm 40. Well that didn't happened and we thought, why have a vasectomy, it seems redundant.
I learned my lesson and had one after our 3rd.

I was 37. On the to do list, but unexpected at the time. Boys should be had in your 20's and early 30's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
Looks like McConnell Team Trump is going to duck having to put the people who actually know on the stand. As bad as the House inquiry was, the optics of rejecting any witnesses by the Senate is in orders of magnitude worse.

I mean we all knew that the votes on both sides were a foregone conclusion, but damn. I thought at a minimum they'd want to exonerate him - hard to do that if these bozos are out there admitting to not even being fair.

Seems odd for you to say that. While it was happening, you gloated so much on how well it was going for your team.

It's not about fair in Dc. It's about "equality." Block witnesses. Don't call witnesses. If you can do it, we can do it better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
This dude has a long history. Remember when he lied about the Russia investigation? He said he had proof that Donald Trump secretly colluded with the Russians to steal 2016. Still waiting on that to materialize.

The way this impeachment investigation has been ran from start to finish, the fact that there was communication and coordination between Schiff and the whistleblower before all of this began, and then Schiff lying about said communication. The fact he's repeatedly blocked the GOP from speaking to the whistleblower and key witnesses in the trial (Which is kind of damn important in an impeachment inquiry).

That doesn't look very good now does it?

Schiff’s history is valid.

I disagree with pretty much everything in the second paragraph. I don’t think some is accurate and the rest is justifiable. Can give specifics, later, if necessary.

The unobjective part, is that same list can be made of Dems and just as easily ridiculed.
I don’t remember the democrats telling verifiable lies about what was happening in the depositions, I don’t remember them barging into the deposition room to interrupt, I don’t remember them intentionally breaking rules in the hearings so they could again falsely claim that their members weren’t being allowed to ask questions.

I don’t remember anything comparable to that from the democrats.

The republicans acted like clowns and then complained it was a circus.
 
Advertisement

Back
Top