The Impeachment Thread

#29,351
#29,351
hog88 said:
Mistake on their part then. If they had and Trump defied the court the Senate still might not have convicted and removed him but damn the campaign ads it would have delivered. They would have been able to and rightfully so call him a tyrant that defied all checks and balances which would play well with the "independents" and swing voters out there.
Click to expand...

So basically the strategy they’ve employed in the Mueller investigation. How’s that working out?
 
#29,353
#29,353
Zues1 said:
It's obvious the house will vote to impeach on Wednesday. Can we then send this decision straight to the Senate to vote for acquittal by Friday morning? It would be great if our " elected" officials could get to the part of serving the people of this country.
Click to expand...
That isn't going to happen whether they vote to impeach or not. It is Christmas in Washington. They have to get collect their bonuses to pay for their Gala dresses or dates.
 
#29,354
#29,354
hog88 said:
I'll be looking at the trial.
Click to expand...

Pay close attention to when the GOP wants to call Hunter Biden and fight against testimony from the Giuliani and the Trump Administration. You have heard the GOP complain about the lack of firsthand witnesses and you will also see them fight to prevent it.
 
#29,356
#29,356
Zues1 said:
It's obvious the house will vote to impeach on Wednesday. Can we then send this decision straight to the Senate to vote for acquittal by Friday morning? It would be great if our " elected" officials could get to the part of serving the people of this country.
Click to expand...
Nooooooo I want the entirety of the left exposed. Bring them all before the body to tell their stories. All the Bidens. The private citizen Obama.... ALL of them
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#29,361
#29,361
RockyTop85 said:
So basically the strategy they’ve employed in the Mueller investigation. How’s that working out?
Click to expand...

It will be a failure for them just as the Muells investigation was. I don't know why you bring that up?

I don't understand your aversion to doing things smartly and looking at the big picture. The Dems are not going to remove Trump through impeachment and they know this so why not frame the process to be beneficial to them during the elections?
 
#29,362
#29,362
RockyTop85 said:
So how do you hold a president accountable for anything if he holds the keys to the evidence and there’s no repercussions for not turning it over?

You don’t think these facts are impeachable. That’s fine I’m not trying to change your mind on that, but lay out a system in which the President doesn’t have to cooperate and can order his staff not to cooperate but he’s still accountable. How does that work, in your mind?
Click to expand...

I would start by saying the investigative process should begin and remain above reproach, and not tow obvious party lines. Schiff violated all signs of a legit inquiry.
 
#29,363
#29,363
Mick said:
Pay close attention to when the GOP wants to call Hunter Biden and fight against testimony from the Giuliani and the Trump Administration. You have heard the GOP complain about the lack of firsthand witnesses and you will also see them fight to prevent it.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't and it will hurt them if they do.
 
#29,367
#29,367
utvols88 said:
Super Majority or 2/3. Civil is 'more likely than not' or 51%
Click to expand...

You’re confusing two different things.

A super majority in the senate is required for removal, correct, but that’s not the standard of proof. The standard of proof is the point at which those 67 senators are convinced to vote to remove him.
 
#29,368
#29,368
RockyTop85 said:
You’re confusing two different things.

A super majority in the senate is required for removal, correct, but that’s not the standard of proof. The standard of proof is the point at which those 67 senators are convinced to vote to remove him.
Click to expand...
We are discussing judgements. I think you are the one confusing the conversation.
 
#29,369
#29,369
GVF said:
Fun game. let's do it again.

Why did people testify that did not have first hand? Why were they even called? Why was their testimony seemingly different under oath than it was under the basement floor??


Side bar: Not sure my son will be heading to GT. He once claimed he wanted to. He took college freshman comp as a HS JR and got a C.
Click to expand...
Because in the absence of first hand testimony, second hand testimony is the best you have. Not sure about what type of changing testimony there was, other than Sonland's amendment.

Side bar: They accept a lot of transfers after freshman and sophomore years so he still has plenty of time to get there if he wants.
Dual enrollment in high school can be great but many universities put a higher value on AP classes. Some universities will not even take any dual enrollment credits (or only a very select few).
Many students take the route of doing a year or two at a local college and then transferring. Saves money, gets a couple of more years of maturity under your belt, builds the GPA, and you still get the Tech diploma.
 
#29,370
#29,370
RockyTop85 said:
Prelude: we are impeaching Donald Trump.

Article I: the president’s conduct violated his oath of office and abused his authority when he solicited foreign interference in a US election from Ukraine and sought to pressure Ukraine by conditioning official acts on the announcement of an investigation. these actions were motivated by political interest and contrary to our national security interest. (The details of who, what, and how are set forth as well, but it’s all about what you’d expect from reading here.)

Article II: the president’s conduct violated his oath of office when he defied subpoenas that were issued pursuant to this impeachment and directing his subordinates to defy valid subpoenas.
(There’s a discussion of the factual details as well as the constitutional theory involved that is basically what is being argued about, here.)

Wherefore: he should be removed from office and barred from holding public office in the future.
Click to expand...
It's so odd how things shake out in DC. The summary of article 2 is much more condemning (in my opinion) than what's been stated.

The first one is actually less so.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top