The Impeachment Thread

#25,802
#25,802
Septic said:
These were fact witnesses, not opinion witnesses and yet the trumpers (Nunes and presumptively you) kept asking them to make unqualified presumptions of guilt and jumping on the fact they wouldn't comment. Each witness plays a role in the totality of the fact finding process - none of the pieces of the testimony are more important or qualifying than the sum of each of those parts.

Also... MULVANEY ADMITTED IT - come to terms with that.

His guilt is undeniable and uncontested by testimony therefore the only thing you should be debating is whether it is an impeachable offense. If Trump wanted to be exonerated or defend himself through his surrogates or in person, he choose not to take that opportunity. That's a him problem, and stop blaming the dems for the process when they are simply following the process that the GOP made the rules for.
Click to expand...

One witness? Out of how many? The rest when asked specifically, could only say no.
 
#25,804
#25,804
McDad said:
I have found 2 sources. Neither of which refute Wiki. Reading through those now.

Wiki as a source here is denounced. That's why I am looking at other outlets.
Click to expand...
OK, I understand. Wiki isn't the be all end all. It's a good jumping off point thought if you find something you don't think is accurate.
 
#25,806
#25,806
RockyTop85 said:
How is it “calling it as it is” to present it as a false binary choice between the two parties?

In what way do I (or anybody) have to choose to trust either Nancy Pelosi Or Donald Trump in order to make a value judgment about facts I can see and hear for myself?

Why can’t I just look at Ukraine or Cuba for examples of what happens when the investigations process is politicized? Can’t I decide for myself that that is an undesirable and inconsistent with my values? Can’t you?

Same questions with regard to the president unilaterally determining what is or isn’t a valid basis for impeachment and that he does not have to comply with the impeachment process if he deems it invalid.

Would you ever see justice in a criminal prosecution system that required a defendant to testify before he can be found guilty, but allowed him to decline to testify? Wouldn’t they just all decline?

And if they’re supposed to work for us, should he really be able to say “no I don’t have to tell you what happened, neither do any of my subordinates, and you can’t fire me if I don’t.” Would that fly in ANY workplace?

Why can’t I retain all of my prior disagreements with Nancy Pelosi and still agree that she’s right on this one issue?
Click to expand...
There's a lot of rhetorical devices in your post. I see no value in commenting on those.

You've made up your mind. That's great. Glad you're able to do so. You are an attorney. Ever plead a case you were sure about only to have the judge or jury disagree? Do judges and juries always make the right decision? Is the process infallible?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#25,807
#25,807
Mick said:
OK, I understand. Wiki isn't the be all end all. It's a good jumping off point thought if you find something you don't think is accurate.
Click to expand...
So, you had no reason to jump on me and cast stones. I don't appreciate it. I try to be civil (although I admit to sacrcasm and humor) and I expect the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#25,810
#25,810
McDad said:
So, you had no reason to jump on me and cast stones. I don't appreciate it. I try to be civil (although I admit to sacrcasm and humor) and I expect the same.
Click to expand...
You threw a blanket of doubt without anything to back it up. It might have been my mistake thinking you were prepared to discuss it. My apologies.
 
#25,814
#25,814
luthervol said:
Trump is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and congress not only has a constitutional duty to impeach but also a moral duty.

How's the gap now?
Click to expand...

Lol. I guess that’s why every “witness” is always saying “I think”, “I believe”, or “I heard” instead of actually knowing s**t or having actual evidence.
 
#25,815
#25,815
Mick said:
You threw a blanket of doubt without anything to back it up. It might have been my mistake thinking you were prepared to discuss it. My apologies.
Click to expand...

Doubt is healthy when it comes to news.

Business Insider and WSJ as well as others are connecting the Embassy to arms deals and covert operations. BI even went so far to mention Stephens was offered additional security and turned it down. It also mentioned how he was integral in setting up arms leaving Libya. That's bad. We shouldn't have Embassies functioning as cover for the CIA. They Ambassadors shouldn't be doing anything shady, either.

I don't conclude that he and the other personnel at the Embassy deserved to die because of it though. It could explain better why it was attacked in the first place. But if "we" put them there, we have a moral obligation to protect them, retrieve them, or suspend activity in the region.

I hope people at the CIA lost their career over this. Bush/Obama and the CIA should have never allowed covert ops at an Embassy. Hillary accepted accountability but she wasn't the only one who should have died on the sword.

The older I get, the more distrusting of politics I become.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#25,816
#25,816
GVF said:
One witness? Out of how many? The rest when asked specifically, could only say no.
Click to expand...

and?

None of them individually are qualified to answer the question, the determination of guilt is the job of congress and ultimately the senate.
 
#25,817
#25,817
Septic said:
and?

None of them individually are qualified to answer the question, the determination of guilt is the job of congress and ultimately the senate.
Click to expand...

Very true. But, when you review the testimonies, as they should, they will see multiple self-contradicting testimonies, and should by nature of the system, take that to heart in their final decisions. Regardless of what that may be. If they find credibility, so be it.

And how, may I ask, is a called star witness under oath, not qualified to answer a direct yes/no question, yet they are more than qualified to blurb out personal inferences and opinions.
 
#25,818
#25,818
McDad said:
Doubt is healthy when it comes to news.

Business Insider and WSJ as well as others are connecting the Embassy to arms deals and covert operations. BI even went so far to mention Stephens was offered additional security and turned it down. It also mentioned how he was integral in setting up arms leaving Libya. That's bad. We shouldn't have Embassies functioning as cover for the CIA. They Ambassadors shouldn't be doing anything shady, either.

I don't conclude that he and the other personnel at the Embassy deserved to die because of it though. It could explain better why it was attacked in the first place. But if "we" put them there, we have a moral obligation to protect them, retrieve them, or suspend activity in the region.

I hope people at the CIA lost their career over this. Bush/Obama and the CIA should have never allowed covert ops at an Embassy. Hillary accepted accountability but she wasn't the only one who should have died on the sword.

The older I get, the more distrusting of politics I become.
Click to expand...

I agree with bolded 1.
Bolded 2 - It wasn't an embassy. I'm not sure the US would've been able to confirm or deny the existence of a consulate in Benghazi before the attack.
Four career State Department officials were criticized for denying requests for additional security at the facility prior to the attack. Eric J. Boswell, the Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security, resigned under pressure, while three others were suspended.
 
#25,819
#25,819
GVF said:
Very true. But, when you review the testimonies, as they should, they will see multiple self-contradicting testimonies, and should by nature of the system, take that to heart in their final decisions. Regardless of what that may be. If they find credibility, so be it.

And how, may I ask, is a called star witness under oath, not qualified to answer a direct yes/no question, yet they are more than qualified to blurb out personal inferences and opinions.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your last question. The witness should not be speculating on the overall guilt or innocence, which presumably you're not happy with. The totality of the testimony is what the congress and senate is charged with evaluating, it's why witnesses are called - for and against. Again, Mulvaney admitted to what the witnesses testified to - you need to recognize that - that's as damning as all of the other witnesses combined.

Trump had his chance to offer a rebuttal and didn't, instead taking his plight to his base via twitter and complaining about the process. The charges are uncontested in any sense of formality by the accused.
 
#25,820
#25,820
McDad said:
There's a lot of rhetorical devices in your post. I see no value in commenting on those.

You've made up your mind. That's great. Glad you're able to do so. You are an attorney. Ever plead a case you were sure about only to have the judge or jury disagree? Do judges and juries always make the right decision? Is the process infallible?
Click to expand...

Of course. Those things happen. Reasonable minds can differ and often do.

I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m asking you to explain how you get from “they work for us” and “impeachment is a soap opera”/“status quo for 200 years,”/Resignation/not resignation/whatever.

So far, IMO, you’ve quibbled over terms, reduced it to a partisan binary choice, and now refuse to engage. I think pushing back on all of that is fair game since none of it really connects idea A with idea B. But if you don’t want to or can’t explain your decision making process, I won’t harass you about it.
 
#25,821
#25,821
Septic said:
I don't understand your last question. The witness should not be speculating on the overall guilt or innocence, which presumably you're not happy with. The totality of the testimony is what the congress and senate is charged with evaluating, it's why witnesses are called - for and against. Again, Mulvaney admitted to what the witnesses testified to - you need to recognize that - that's as damning as all of the other witnesses combined.

Trump had his chance to offer a rebuttal and didn't, instead taking his plight to his base via twitter and complaining about the process. The charges are uncontested in any sense of formality by the accused.
Click to expand...
They like to bring accusations to a fact fight.
 
#25,822
#25,822
AirVol said:
Dude, I sleep 4 hours a night and can still run circles around your lazy ass.
Click to expand...

If you say so hero.

I've met you long haired airforce slobs, you clowns get winded walking from the cart to the tee box.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top