Impeachment Hearings

[*bfine32*]

(12-19-2019, 09:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: Could we wait how this actually plays out before we (quite heftily) slam Democrats for a hypothetical strategy?

And of course they have to play power games with McConnell. To believe they do not would be naive. As who's against the constitution, I go with the president guy that calls impeachment illegitimate and illegal and hence he does not have to respond to Congress. Or those that parrot that uncostitutional stance.

Why the need to wait? She's clearly stated her reason(s) to delay.

I too think POTUS has behaved badly during this circus. 

You kinda lost me on the "parrot that unconstitutional stance" remark. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-19-2019, 10:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: The level one has to sink too to claim they don't support/defend Trump in this case and then post like that is amazing.

It should be applauded.

I never did get your view on Pelosci holding the articles of impeachment.

Do you wish to share your thoughts on that or just do Dino?

[hollodero]

(12-19-2019, 11:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why the need to wait?

I don't know. There sure are levers of power I'm not even aware of. That Pelosi will hold it up for months so Trump can't be acquitted before the election is not quite high on my list of possibilities though. For it sounds like an awful strategy for several reasons and Pelosi is smarter than that. And we're at day 1 after impeachment now, so I'm not quite ready to jump to your conclusion.

(12-19-2019, 11:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You kinda lost me on the "parrot that unconstitutional stance" remark. 

That's what the republicans do. They fully stand behind Trump denying Congress their rights.
Which seems a strange time to slam democrats for their neglecting the rule of law over a hypothetical scenario.

[*bfine32*]

(12-19-2019, 11:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know. There sure are levers of power I'm not even aware of. That Pelosi will hold it up for months so Trump can't be acquitted before the election is not quite high on my list of possibilities though. For it sounds like an awful strategy for several reasons and Pelosi is smarter than that. And we're at day 1 after impeachment now, so I'm not quite ready to jump to your conclusion.



That's what the republicans do. They fully stand behind Trump denying Congress their rights.
Which seems a strange time to slam democrats for their neglecting the rule of law over a hypothetical scenario.

You guys are great. So you're in the Pat opinion: It's OK as long as she just does it for a little bit.

This is priceless. 

[hollodero]

(12-19-2019, 11:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You guys are great. So you're in the Pat opinion: It's OK as long as she just does it for a little bit.

This is priceless. 

Yeah... could you tell me again how Pelosi is breaking the rule of law? Does the constitution say that articles have to go to the Senate immediately? I mean, I really don't know, I just doubt it. But if there's a law explicitly demanding that articles are to be turned over to the senate immediately, then ok you have a point. If there isn't, then well, you kinda don't.

I know your constitutional law says Congress has the sole power of impeachment though, and this is the rule of law actually broken. Since Trump's position is that this is not a legit impeachment, but a partisan hoax, and so this constitution thing does not apply here.

[SunsetBengal]

Exculpatory evidence was in the FBI's possession for two years. What are they trying to hide? That is the question that people should be asking, rather than trying to follow the false narrative that Trump it a foreign agent.

[BakertheBeast]

(12-19-2019, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You've hit on exactly what the Dems want and your honesty should be applauded. The Dems give 2 shits about the "rule of law". They want to say Trump was impeached, but to also have to say he was acquitted does not help their case.  

Personally, I love those in here supporting her choice to hold up the vote. Hell, they may even try to tell you they favor the Constitution, but grown folks see. 

Thanks for the kind words Bfine. Let me be perfectly clear in my opinion on this matter (although my opinion doesn't mean squat).
Lets take something we all agree on here. Trump is like a boil one gets on their ass that needs removed. All the charges against him for justifying the house impeaching him are true and factual. He confessed to them on video as did Mulvaney. Trump is conman and a fraud. We all agree on these statements.
The Democrats do hate him no doubt. Most Repubs hate him also. Using the "rule of law" to get rid of this guy who committed these acts of treason is fine by me. If the congressional Repubs weren't so worried about getting re-elected and denounce trump for the turd he is , his base would turn on him too.
I blame the Repubs for this mess the country's in. Unemployment is at an all time low. Whoopie doo. low paying jobs flipping burgers.  Wages are stagnet just like they were under Obama.
Who got the best interest of the middle class in mind, the Repubs or the Dems?

[BmorePat87]

(12-19-2019, 11:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You guys are great. So you're in the Pat opinion: It's OK as long as she just does it for a little bit.

This is priceless. 

What a pathetic misrepresentation of what I said.

Quote: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.

[GMDino]

(12-19-2019, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I never did get your view on Pelosci holding the articles of impeachment.

Do you wish to share your thoughts on that or just do Dino?

(12-19-2019, 03:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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.

To be clear for people who "just ask" and never do the research: she is waiting to be clear on the rules for the trial so she can prepare the house and start the process.

Have you posted your well-informed links about how she is breaking constitutional rules? Or you just gonna "bfine" it until people catch on to you line of "questions"?

For a guy who claims to agree with the impeachment you sure look like you're trying very hard to defend DJT...again.

[BmorePat87]

(12-20-2019, 12:23 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Exculpatory evidence was in the FBI's possession for two years.  What are they trying to hide?  That is the question that people should be asking, rather than trying to follow the false narrative that Trump it a foreign agent.

Sir, this is a Wendy's

[jj22]

Trump defenders/supporters more mad about Nancy's threat to delay sending impeachment to Senate then they are Trumps needing foreign countries to attack America and her Democracy along with fellow American's in order to help him win elections...

Go figure.

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2019, 12:16 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah... could you tell me again how Pelosi is breaking the rule of law? Does the constitution say that articles have to go to the Senate immediately? I mean, I really don't know, I just doubt it. But if there's a law explicitly demanding that articles are to be turned over to the senate immediately, then ok you have a point. If there isn't, then well, you kinda don't.

I know your constitutional law says Congress has the sole power of impeachment though, and this is the rule of law actually broken. Since Trump's position is that this is not a legit impeachment, but a partisan hoax, and so this constitution thing does not apply here.

The Constitution clearly states she must hand them over and she has 0 say in how the Senate runs its procedure. She has stated she's holding them because the framers (aka those who wrote the Constitution) didn't foresee what see sees. She's smarter than the framers. And no matter how hard you try to spin it. Her actions are not "Trump's fault."

I get folks are hypocritical based on their bias; however, then could at least own it. Mitch McConnell damn sure has.

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2019, 10:11 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What a pathetic misrepresentation of what I said.

Seems like exactly what you said.

Is this better: It's OK that the Speaker holds these articles until she's told how the Senate is going to perform their duties?

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2019, 11:27 AM)jj22 Wrote: Trump defenders/supporters more mad about Nancy's threat to delay sending impeachment to Senate then they are Trumps needing foreign countries to attack America and her Democracy along with fellow American's in order to help him win elections...

Go figure.

I'm not mad one bit that she is holding the articles and neither is the leader of the Senate. I'm just digging folks talking out of both sides of their mouths.

[fredtoast]

(12-20-2019, 12:23 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Exculpatory evidence was in the FBI's possession for two years.  What are they trying to hide? 

What are you talking about?

The Ukraine call was just made this year.

[GMDino]

(12-20-2019, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not mad one bit that she is holding the articles and neither is the leader of the Senate. I'm just digging folks talking out of both sides of their mouths.

[hollodero]

(12-20-2019, 11:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The Constitution clearly states she must hand them over and she has 0 say in how the Senate runs its procedure. She has stated she's holding them because the framers (aka those who wrote the Constitution) didn't foresee what see sees. She's smarter than the framers. And no matter how hard you try to spin it. Her actions are not "Trump's fault."

First of all, I did not say her actions are Trump's fault. I read up on the whole issue in the meantime. The articles need to go to the senate, but she is not obligated by law to send them over immediately. She is merely using a piece of leeway she has and this is not akin to "giving two shits about the rule of law". Not at all, actually. And I see no reason for me or anyone to be mad about that.
If she were to hold them up indefinitely, or until the election or whatever, then I think that is wrong. I will do so at the time this becomes relevant.

I also find it funny how you say you have no problem with her holding it up actually, but you still have a problem with others having no problem with it. This is kind of a bizarre position.

(12-20-2019, 11:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I get folks are hypocritical based on their bias; however, then could at least own it.

Oh please. "Projection". You're among the most biased people I ever had a debate with. So - don't. Just don't.

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2019, 12:16 AM)hollodero Wrote: I know your constitutional law says Congress has the sole power of impeachment though, and this is the rule of law actually broken. Since Trump's position is that this is not a legit impeachment, but a partisan hoax, and so this constitution thing does not apply here.

(12-20-2019, 12:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: First of all, I did not say her actions are Trump's fault.

OK

[hollodero]

(12-20-2019, 12:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK

Yeah no, not ok. My point was about how you complain about alleged breaking of the law and the constitution by democrats/Pelosi [in quite stark terms, and with no basis in fact] while you have nothing to say about the actual breaking of the law and the constitution by Trump/condoning republicans. Which makes you look more like a conservative party's advocate then like the honest, grown-up observer, as which you try to sell yourself and your deeply partisan stances time and again. While accusing others of bias.

In no means did my response mean that Trump is responsible for Pelosi's course of action. And in no way did I say that. I merely think that her actions do not show how democrats give "two shits about the rule of law", as you said it does. I also have no problem with her course of action, and, as you said, neither do you. So why are you even... ah well. I know why.

Your trying to find fault with every non-conservative voice at any turn is really starting to get out of hand.

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2019, 01:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah no, not ok. My point was about how you complain about alleged breaking of the law and the constitution by democrats/Pelosi [in quite stark terms, and with no basis in fact] while you have nothing to say about the actual breaking of the law and the constitution by Trump/condoning republicans. Which makes you look more like a conservative party's advocate then like the honest, grown-up observer, as which you try to sell yourself and your deeply partisan stances time and again. While accusing others of bias.

In no means did my response mean that Trump is responsible for Pelosi's course of action. And in no way did I say that. I merely think that her actions do not show how democrats give "two shits about the rule of law", as you said it does. I also have no problem with her course of action, and, as you said, neither do you. So why are you even... ah well. I know why.

Your trying to find fault with every non-conservative voice at any turn is really starting to get out of hand.

To suggest you didn't go full "because Trump" is being a little dishonest IMO. But whatever.

Of course all I asked was what was my Dem friend's view on The Speaker holding onto the articles. The 3 that responded said they were OK (well one just posted memes that we must try to decipher) with it. I just found that view to be a tad bit hypocritical; especially how completely they've clothed themselves in the Constitution during these proceedings. Then Nancy comes out and says she going to hold on to these because those that wrote the Constitution didn't foresee what she sees.

I'm unsure what I've been hypocritical on. I supported the House's move to hold impeachment hearings and now that they've form articles of impeachment I feel they should turn them over to the Senate so they can do their job.  The fact that the Speaker isn't doing this is comical and no one is laughing harder than the Majority Leader and you know why? Because he knows he doesn't answer to her. It's just more of the circus nonpartisan strive for the truth.