Impeachment Hearings

[BmorePat87]

(12-20-2019, 11:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No, I think I got it all. 

So in your opinion. The legitimate reasons are:

A. Waiting until a scheduled recess is over that she was fully aware of when they drafted the articles. I wonder why drafting the articles couldn't wait until after the break? (Don't answer that one)


B. The Senate tells her how they plan to conduct their business.
We'll just disagree on this one.

She's holding them for political circus and she's looking like the clown. Oh, and those defending her doing so. 

As i've said: I love that she's holding them. I love the reactions of the GOP that are mad she is and the explanations of the Dems that say she has a legitimate reason to hold them.  The entertainment value is priceless. 

It shouldn't take me telling you to cut out your shit twice in order for you to finally accurately represent my post. Instead of complaining that the rules/mods are against you and that everyone insults you, just don't do this kind of shit.

Or if you do, don't say my name when you do it. 

[Matt_Crimson]

(12-19-2019, 02:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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.

Surviving a house impeachment vote might "look" better but that does not mean that it is actually better. Again, people have been saying for months now that the impeachment is actually helping Trump, not hurting him. If that's true, then Trump wouldn't necessarily need to care about exoneration if dragging out this impeachment was "better" for him.

(12-19-2019, 02:16 PM)jj22 Wrote: 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.

You call it "spin". I call it being open to other plausible arguments as to what might be going on. This is not a one size fits all matter, and I am surprised that some people are talking about it like it is. "Common sense" in this case is subjective.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-24-2019, 10:43 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Surviving a house impeachment vote might "look" better but that does not mean that it is actually better. Again, people have been saying for months now that the impeachment is actually helping Trump, not hurting him. If that's true, then Trump wouldn't necessarily need to care about exoneration if dragging out this impeachment was "better" for him.


You call it "spin". I call it being open to other plausible arguments as to what might be going on. This is not a one size fits all matter, and I am surprised that some people are talking about it like it is. "Common sense" in this case is subjective.

I think there’s little doubt impeachment helped Clinton, but he wasn’t up for re-election. You sure as hell have to hope impeachment doesn’t help Trump. The main issue is the economy seems to be doing well and that’s what people vote on in the end.

[BmorePat87]

(12-24-2019, 10:43 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Surviving a house impeachment vote might "look" better but that does not mean that it is actually better. Again, people have been saying for months now that the impeachment is actually helping Trump, not hurting him. If that's true, then Trump wouldn't necessarily need to care about exoneration if dragging out this impeachment was "better" for him.

Assuming it does help him. Based on his comments in the past, I have a feeling being impeached got under his skin.

[*bfine32*]

(12-24-2019, 10:43 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Surviving a house impeachment vote might "look" better but that does not mean that it is actually better. Again, people have been saying for months now that the impeachment is actually helping Trump, not hurting him. If that's true, then Trump wouldn't necessarily need to care about exoneration if dragging out this impeachment was "better" for him.


You call it "spin". I call it being open to other plausible arguments as to what might be going on. This is not a one size fits all matter, and I am surprised that some people are talking about it like it is. "Common sense" in this case is subjective.

There is some truth that these continued calls for impeachment have helped Trump and the GOP in general. The issue is Trump is so narcissistic that he will cut off his nose to spite his face. Instead of just saying "Let 'em have their pound of flesh; it doesn't matter"; he's going to fight them at every turn. He does that because his pride will not allow him to let anyone think he was wrong. 

Now McConnel sees it for what it is and is using it to promote the GOP; IMO,that's where the Dems are going to take it in the shorts.  

[GMDino]

(12-24-2019, 12:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Assuming it does help him. Based on his comments in the past, I have a feeling being impeached got under his skin.

It's bad for the brand.

Hard to push how great you are when you're borrowing money to buy another business that will fail when you have the stench of Impeachment on the name.

That's all he cares about.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-24-2019, 01:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's bad for the brand.

Hard to push how great you are when you're borrowing money to buy another business that will fail when you have the stench of Impeachment on the name.

That's all he cares about.

There’s going to be a Trumpeachment Hotel. He will wear it as a badge of honor.

[GMDino]

(12-26-2019, 10:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: There’s going to be a Trumpeachment Hotel.  He will wear it as a badge of honor.

That's funny, but if it was even remotely close to being true he'd already be selling "Trump Impeachment Peach Liquor Mints" on his re-election website.  lol.

It will bother him for the rest of his miserable life.

[Benton]

(12-26-2019, 10:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's funny, but if it was even remotely close to being true he'd already be selling "Trump Impeachment Peach Liquor Mints" on his re-election website.  lol.

It will bother him for the rest of his miserable life.

In his mind, I don't think so.

In his mind, this is either the story of how a plucky billionaire pulled himself up by the bootstraps of a mere several million dollars to fend off a conspiracy by swaying the public, or how an elitist club railroaded a millionaire who wasn't one of them. Either way, he's a winner in his mind.

[GMDino]

(12-27-2019, 08:52 AM)Benton Wrote: In his mind, I don't think so.

In his mind, this is either the story of how a plucky billionaire pulled himself up by the bootstraps of a mere several million dollars to fend off a conspiracy by swaying the public, or how an elitist club railroaded a millionaire who wasn't one of them. Either way, he's a winner in his mind.

That he will consider himself the victim and play as him being attacked over "nothing" is true.  But it will always stick with him.  He was told, by a majority vote, that he was wrong.

History books will always associate his name with being impeached.

[GMDino]

I wonder why DJT won't allow these guys to testify to his "perfect" call?  

Extraordinary that this extortive plot — which mortgaged our national security for Trump’s interests — went on for nearly 3 months with little notice until the whistleblower came forward. Chilling to think what else may be happening behind the scenes. https://t.co/gFOmtJHwC5

— Ned Price (@nedprice) December 30, 2019

 

[Matt_Crimson]

(12-24-2019, 01:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's bad for the brand.

Hard to push how great you are when you're borrowing money to buy another business that will fail when you have the stench of Impeachment on the name.

That's all he cares about.

"Stench of impeachment".

I was watching CNN when Trump got impeached and they were all losing their marbles over what this "means for history". I still don't get it honestly.

Trump was impeached by a bunch of Democrats that already didn't like him much if at all. It's not like all of his best friends got together and decided to vote him off of the island.

[*bfine32*]

(01-02-2020, 01:28 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: "Stench of impeachment".

I was watching CNN when Trump got impeached and they were all losing their marbles over what this "means for history". I still don't get it honestly.

Trump was impeached by a bunch of Democrats that already didn't like him much if at all. It's not like all of his best friends got together and decided to vote him off of the island.

The part about the process I found the most absurd was when the Dems would start off all somber talking about how "sad of a day this is for America" and then get moist with excitement when the proclaimed "Impeach, impeach, impeach!!"

[Matt_Crimson]

(01-02-2020, 01:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The part about the process I found the most absurd was when the Dems would start off all somber talking about how "sad of a day this is for America" and then get moist with excitement when the proclaimed "Impeach, impeach, impeach!!"

The best part was that Pelosi apparently had a football huddle before the impeachment voting began to make sure the depressed and saddened Democrats didn't cheer once Trump was impeached. And then after the votes went through, she still had to give them a death stare and wave her hand in rebuke at them to stop the cheers. What a sad day it was.

[fredtoast]

(01-02-2020, 01:28 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Trump was impeached by a bunch of Democrats that already didn't like him much if at all. It's not like all of his best friends got together and decided to vote him off of the island.

Here is the problem for Trump.

On September 24 when Pelosi announced the beginning of the impeachment inquiry only 38% of Americans supported impeaching Trump while 51% opposed.  Since the public has been exposed to the evidence in the hearings the numbers have flipped.  Now more people support impeachment (47.7) than oppose (46.1).

Those percentages are from a collection of polls at fivethirtyeight.com, not just one biased source

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

Republicans can call it a "joke" all they want, and when the Senate refuses to convict him they can crow that it was all just a "witch hunt", but the American public does not agree.

[BmorePat87]

https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/exclusive-unredacted-ukraine-documents-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/

This is incredibly damning. Just Security, part of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law, reviewed un-redacted emails regarding the hold on the Ukraine funding. The repeated warnings by the DOD to the OMB on the illegal nature of the funding holds were consistently redacted, hiding the fact that the WH was warned repeatedly that their hold on funding was violating the law and could cause major issues.

As the DOD constantly reached out to the OMB regarding Ukraine funding, the lack of legal guidance, the inability to spend the money (as legally required) if the proper steps are not taken, and a justification for the hold, the OMB kept saying "we are going to extend the hold". The DOD warned them to take the proper steps and kept asking if they were going to process impoundment paperwork, telling them that the actions the OMB was taking were illegal.

The hold extended into September when the DOD warned the OMB that half of the funding would not be able to be processed. The point man at the OMB Duffey then responded to the Pentagon Comptroller McCusker (who has been warning him about the legality and requesting he take the proper steps), CCing OMB and Pentagon lawyers, throwing her and the DOD under the bus, blaming them for the entire thing.

She responds: "You can't be serious. I am speechless".

This completely contradicts the OMB's claim to Congress that the DOD never warned them about the legal issues surrounding the hold.

[Belsnickel]

(01-02-2020, 06:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/exclusive-unredacted-ukraine-documents-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/

This is incredibly damning. Just Security, part of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law, reviewed un-redacted emails regarding the hold on the Ukraine funding. The repeated warnings by the DOD to the OMB on the illegal nature of the funding holds were consistently redacted, hiding the fact that the WH was warned repeatedly that their hold on funding was violating the law and could cause major issues.

As the DOD constantly reached out to the OMB regarding Ukraine funding, the lack of legal guidance, the inability to spend the money (as legally required) if the proper steps are not taken, and a justification for the hold, the OMB kept saying "we are going to extend the hold". The DOD warned them to take the proper steps and kept asking if they were going to process impoundment paperwork, telling them that the actions the OMB was taking were illegal.

The hold extended into September when the DOD warned the OMB that half of the funding would not be able to be processed. The point man at the OMB Duffey then responded to the Pentagon Comptroller McCusker (who has been warning him about the legality and requesting he take the proper steps), CCing OMB and Pentagon lawyers, throwing her and the DOD under the bus, blaming them for the entire thing.

She responds: "You can't be serious. I am speechless".

This completely contradicts the OMB's claim to Congress that the DOD never warned them about the legal issues surrounding the hold.

Not only is this damning as we see the administration lying to the GAO (which is obstruction of an investigation) but we also see that the DoJ is blatantly attempting to cover up the wrongdoing by trying to hide the information.

This will go unnoticed to most people, though.

[*Nately120*]

(01-02-2020, 03:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is the problem for Trump.

On September 24 when Pelosi announced the beginning of the impeachment inquiry only 38% of Americans supported impeaching Trump while 51% opposed.  Since the public has been exposed to the evidence in the hearings the numbers have flipped.  Now more people support impeachment (47.7) than oppose (46.1).

Those percentages are from a collection of polls at fivethirtyeight.com, not just one biased source

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

Republicans can call it a "joke" all they want, and when the Senate refuses to convict him they can crow that it was all just a "witch hunt", but the American public does not agree.

Lucky for Trump he's a member of the political party that doesn't need the support of the majority to win the WH.

[Matt_Crimson]

(01-02-2020, 03:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is the problem for Trump.

On September 24 when Pelosi announced the beginning of the impeachment inquiry only 38% of Americans supported impeaching Trump while 51% opposed.  Since the public has been exposed to the evidence in the hearings the numbers have flipped.  Now more people support impeachment (47.7) than oppose (46.1).

Those percentages are from a collection of polls at fivethirtyeight.com, not just one biased source

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

Republicans can call it a "joke" all they want, and when the Senate refuses to convict him they can crow that it was all just a "witch hunt", but the American public does not agree.

What's the problem?

A bunch of polls also said Trump had basically no chance of winning the election, including FiveThirtyEight.

[Belsnickel]

(01-02-2020, 08:24 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: What's the problem?

A bunch of polls also said Trump had basically no chance of winning the election, including FiveThirtyEight.

Nate Silver, the man behind FiveThirtyEight, actually cautioned pollsters against that interpretation. National polls are designed for the popular vote, not the EC, and as such can be interpreted poorly for the presidential election. The polls weren't wrong, they actually predicted Clinton's popular vote win quite well. This does present a problem for Trump because these polls show a shifting public opinion which they need to change.