Impeachment Hearings

[*bfine32*]

(12-19-2019, 02:36 AM)hollodero Wrote: No, it's justified. Said peer does exactly that. Why is it "dangerous" to say so?
Why am I' supposed to take issue with calling it out and not take issue with the actual Russian propaganda?



Ah...

...but no, I am not. I am severely flawed, but I am not as evil as Trump, and neither are you or probably anyone in here. "Ah, we all are evil" is really a ludicrous relativization of Trump.
One could tolerate anything with this line.

Everyone on that floor gave a partisan speech including many members serving as Judge, juror, and executioner; however, when a GOp brings up the possible corruption trump claimed he wanted investigated the Chair called it "Russian propaganda". Consider it justified if you choose I found the Chair to be partisan in his duties

No one said you were as evil as trump.

[*Nately120*]

Side note, I have to say there is something bitterly amusing about the idea that Trump could lose the popular vote in 2016 but still win the election THEN get impeached in his first term and THEN win the 2020 election, possibly losing the popular vote again.

The idea that a minority of people voted in a guy who had a record-breaking impeachment and get another term out of him is just...it's just hilarious. How could we ever top that?

[BmorePat87]

(12-19-2019, 01:46 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: But if it were so "obvious" I dont believe we'd be having this discussion right now. Everyone has already said that the senate will not remove Trump from office. Given that this appears to be what will happen, I dont see why Trump would need to have anyone testify about anything for the House.

Which is why I raise the point that perhaps being impeached isnt necessarily what he wanted all along but rather something he was not afraid to let happen if he feels it works in his favor. Tump even said that if the democrats were going to impeach him they should "do it fast so we can go to trial in the senate"

And for months now people have repeated over and over again that Trump being impeached is helping his re-election.

Having people exonerate him in the House would prevent the impeachment from even occurring. Surviving a House impeachment vote based on the facts looks a lot better than being acquitted in the Senate because the GOP has your back. 

I do think his is trying to weaponize it to work in his favor, but I do not think his ultimate plan was to be impeached. If he had proof that would exonerate him, he would have given it.

[jj22]

The Russians are the ones trying to push the Ukraine attacked America and not Russia line that Republicans are now adopting.

Stand with America and our Intel is all they are saying. Quit quoting Putin and contributing to Russia's misinformation campaign to attack Ukraine.

We wouldn't have to persuade people to choose America Intel over Russia's prior to 2016. Certainly not pushing Russian talking points on the floor of the Congress. This is the damage Trump has done.

[BmorePat87]

(12-19-2019, 01:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Everyone on that floor gave a partisan speech including many members serving as Judge, juror, and executioner; however, when a GOp brings up the possible corruption trump claimed he wanted investigated the Chair called it "Russian propaganda". Consider it justified if you choose I found the Chair to be partisan in his duties

No one said you were as evil as trump.

Were Fiona Hill and the intelligence officers who briefed the Senate "partisan" when they called those claims Russian propaganda? 

[jj22]

(12-19-2019, 01:46 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: But if it were so "obvious" I dont believe we'd be having this discussion right now. Everyone has already said that the senate will not remove Trump from office. Given that this appears to be what will happen, I dont see why Trump would need to have anyone testify about anything for the House.

Which is why I raise the point that perhaps being impeached isnt necessarily what he wanted all along but rather something he was not afraid to let happen if he feels it works in his favor. Tump even said that if the democrats were going to impeach him they should "do it fast so we can go to trial in the senate"

And for months now people have repeated over and over again that Trump being impeached is helping his re-election.

With politics its always best to lean on common sense. Common sense says if people can exonerate you, you'd let them testify. If they can't.........

Really at the end of the day common sense is the best weapon against cutting through spin.

[*bfine32*]

(12-19-2019, 02:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Were Fiona Hill and the intelligence officers who briefed the Senate "partisan" when they called those claims Russian propaganda? 

Nothing points to it as being such. Of course they were just testifying.

There's no need to further support your stance unless you're having second thoughts. You've already shared that you consider the Chair's "chastising" of the Congressman to be just.

Personally, I think he showed partisanship in this duties as Chair.

BTW, all my US Constitution supporting Dems: What's your view on Pelosci holding the articles of impeachment from the Senate?

[hollodero]

(12-19-2019, 01:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Everyone on that floor gave a partisan speech including many members serving as Judge, juror, and executioner; however, when a GOp brings up the possible corruption trump claimed he wanted investigated the Chair called it "Russian propaganda".

That's because it is Russian propaganda. Your intelligence agencies say so.

Partisanry is one thing - I for one would not expect house democrats (or house republicans) to be non-partisan, much like I don't expect a prosecutor to be neutral. But being partisan by repeating unfounded foreign propaganda is something else.
I see no issue in pointing that out. At all.

(12-19-2019, 01:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No one said you were as evil as trump.

Yeah, you said "Trump is evil, as are we all". Which seems quite the relativization.

[*bfine32*]

(12-19-2019, 02:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's because it is Russian propaganda. Your intelligence agencies say so.

Partisanry is one thing - I for one would not expect house democrats (or house republicans) to be non-partisan, much like I don't expect a prosecutor to be neutral. But being partisan by repeating unfounded foreign propaganda is something else.
I see no issue in pointing that out. At all.



Yeah, you said "Trump is evil, as are we all". Which seems quite the relativization.

My issue is not with those on the floor being partisan it's expected; it was with the Chair being so.

Nah, we have all sinned (committed Evil).

[jj22]

(12-19-2019, 02:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: BTW, all my US Constitution supporting Dems: What's your view on Pelosci holding the articles of impeachment from the Senate?

She never said she wasn't going to send the articles. Just that she is waiting for the agreement on the trial.

Now for whoever on the right still believes in the constitution, any thoughts on McConnel claiming it's not his role to be an impartial Juror? Graham already making his decision and admitting to not reading the testimony or listening to the witnesses. Republicans in Senate already coming up with their conclusion?

To me only one party is representing the constitution. But that's no shock after the unconstitutional stolen SCOTUS seat McConnel called the greatest accomplishment of his career.

https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1207674163739136001

And please stop making everyone here out to be like Trump in order for you to feel comfortable criticizing him.... that is extremely insulting and disrespectful even if we "are all sinners". Maybe you attack the dead, are insecure, attack the disabled and special need teenagers, cheat on wives while paying off porn stars, brag about sexual assault, are corrupt and a known con artist, and think you are the messiah. But speak for yourself if you feel like you and Trump are all of the same. Don't lump all of us in that category.

[hollodero]

(12-19-2019, 02:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My issue is not with those on the floor being partisan it's expected; it was with the Chair being so.

But is the chair supposed to be non-partisan? I'd say he's the top prosecutor, hence opinionated, and not judge or jury. But I really can't tell how it's customary.

I have to say though, I do not even find it particularly partisan to call out the use of foreign propaganda lies. If it's a founded accusation, which I believe it is. That's something an impartial judge would also do.

(12-19-2019, 02:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, we have all sinned (committed Evil).

Yeah, we probably all have. But that's just the conundrum here I reach quite often considering your arguments. Still seems to me like you're saying here "Trump is a sinner, for we are all sinners, so Trump is just like we all are", and that I'd find untrue. And a relativization.

[GMDino]

(12-19-2019, 02:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: BTW, all my US Constitution supporting Dems: What's your view on Pelosci holding the articles of impeachment from the Senate?

(12-19-2019, 02:58 PM)jj22 Wrote: She never said she wasn't going to send the articles. Just that she is waiting for the agreement on the trial.

She was pretty straight forward with her reasoning.

I'm sure her explanation could have been missed.  Many people choose to not watch/listen/read but rather to just react to what they are told, which is fine until they are "just asking" loaded questions not based in the reality of the situation.

[jj22]

We now know where Republicans got their talking points from nearly verbatim.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/putin-trump-impeachment.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[GMDino]

It must dive DJT crazy that a woman is smarter and better at this than he thinks he is.

PELOSI:
"Cruelty is not wit. Just because he gets a laugh, for saying the cruel things that he says doesn't mean he's funny. It's not funny at all, it's very SAD. Thank you all very much HAPPY HOLIDAYS."? pic.twitter.com/i8fVfbCEPj

— Bill Maxwell ? #CountryOverParty (@Bill_Maxwell_) December 19, 2019

 

[GMDino]

Pelosi responds to Mitch McConnell:

"Our founders when they wrote the Constitution, they suspected that there could be a rogue president. I don't think they suspected that we could have a rogue president and a rogue leader in the Senate at the same time"pic.twitter.com/WGT3cfcM5w

— Bill Maxwell ? #CountryOverParty (@Bill_Maxwell_) December 19, 2019

[BmorePat87]

(12-19-2019, 02:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nothing points to it as being such. Of course they were just testifying.

There's no need to further support your stance unless you're having second thoughts. You've already shared that you consider the Chair's "chastising" of the Congressman to be just.

Personally, I think he showed partisanship in this duties as Chair.

I wasn't further supporting my stance, just asking a question. Why do you believe it was partisan when he said it but not so when others said it, and does any partisan intent in his words change the merit of what he said regarding spouting known Russian propaganda on the House floor?

Quote:BTW, all my US Constitution supporting Dems: What's your view on Pelosci holding the articles of impeachment from the Senate?

I think holding it up for a week or so to prepare the House's end of it (determining who will be impeachment managers, etc), for a holiday break, or for an agreement with the Senate on how the trial will look is appropriate. Anything beyond that or for reasons not justified would be inappropriate. 

[Millhouse]

(12-19-2019, 02:05 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Side note, I have to say there is something bitterly amusing about the idea that Trump could lose the popular vote in 2016 but still win the election THEN get impeached in his first term and THEN win the 2020 election, possibly losing the popular vote again.

The idea that a minority of people voted in a guy who had a record-breaking impeachment and get another term out of him is just...it's just hilarious.  How could we ever top that?

If the Dems are smart, they will nominate a moderate candidate. But if they put up one of the left-wing dingbats, Maga Part 2 incoming, imo.

[treee]

(12-19-2019, 04:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think holding it up for a week or so to prepare the House's end of it (determining who will be impeachment managers, etc), for a holiday break, or for an agreement with the Senate on how the trial will look is appropriate. Anything beyond that or for reasons not justified would be inappropriate. 

I think holding off on sending it to the Senate while highlighting the multiple GOP senators who have openly stated they will not be impartial jurors, is smart.

[jj22]

(12-19-2019, 04:23 PM)Millhouse Wrote: If the Dems are smart, they will nominate a moderate candidate. But if they put up one of the left-wing dingbats, Maga Part 2 incoming, imo.

Trump will eat a moderate alive. Republicans play the game (steal scotus seats, redraw districts, push through judges without hearings while on recess etc) none of them work with Dems and are moderate...... And they win!

They can't send a measly mr. (or mrs.) nice "can't we all just get along" guy/gal to face Trump. Even if they lose in 2020 they are going to have to send a fighter.

Dems won't get away with it and folks demand them to play nice and be moderate. At this point win lose or draw they have to fight back. Dems can't continue to be held hostage because Americans don't hold the parties equally accountable and demand them to be moderate and turn the other cheek while Republicans get standing ovations when their candidate attacks dead Vets, the disabled, and even special needs kids.

[*Nately120*]

(12-19-2019, 04:23 PM)Millhouse Wrote: If the Dems are smart, they will nominate a moderate candidate. But if they put up one of the left-wing dingbats, Maga Part 2 incoming, imo.

I'm just saying Bloomberg could win the popular vote and still lose cuz of all them red states.