Cohen hearing

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 06:50 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The only thing that will make impeachment possible is the 2020 election. They need more Senate seats before they have any chance at impeachment.

However, if we win enough seats to impeach Trump while simultaneously re-electing Trump...that would just be downright bizarre.

I just don't think impeachment is even on the table. The Republicans will not budge on that because they know the second they attempt to impeach Trump, his entire base will turn on them, just in time for the 2020 election, which would basically condemn them to being replaced by Democrats.

Remember-impeachment is in the House.  You impeach him and then force the Republican Senators to make a choice.  Either way they win.  

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 06:47 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Damn this AOC chick can actually speak.  

That's gotta sting when you consider how some of the other half wits presented themselves as currently having a stroke.

Like yeah she can.

[CJD]

(02-27-2019, 06:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Remember-impeachment is in the House.  You impeach him and then force the Republican Senators to make a choice.  Either way they win.  

Yea, but an impeachment in the house doesn't actually do anything unless the Senate agrees to convict, which requires a super majority. So removing him from office is virtually impossible.

Not that I disagree with you. It'd be great if the House would impeach him. But they have the numbers to do it right now, so the barrier to removal is in the Senate, in my opinion.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-27-2019, 06:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Like yeah she can.

compare her elocution to that of bob gibbs and tell me whose mental capabilities seem fit for office.  

abida abida abida, no he couldnt

[jj22]

(02-27-2019, 06:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No not 45.  The Whitewater investigation began in'93 or '94.  so she's been investigated different times over a 25 year period..  They investigated something that happened less than 10 years prior.  You know how a lot of people around Trump have gotten in trouble with the law?  10 or 15 people were indicted in that thing so...

No, it was reinvestigated when Clinton won Presidency. That was investigation 773 out of 1500+, but it was an expansion of investigation 227 since that investigation didn't turn anything up.

I may be off my investigation numbers as we are dealing in the thousands, but when Bill won Presidency, they reopened all that stuff. Which is what you are reading. The original scandal and investigations into it began in the 70's.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-27-2019, 06:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Remember-impeachment is in the House.  You impeach him and then force the Republican Senators to make a choice.  Either way they win.  

I don't see a vote to impeachment as a definite win for the Dems.  As you rightly allude to, it will be political theater, which can always backfire.  It would also fire up Trump's base and people leaning that way.  It would be very easy to paint the Dems as attempting to usurp the POTUS and subvert democracy.  This type of thing would be red meat for right leaning voters.  It really hurts how this would be perceived because there's been talk of impeaching Trump from the minute the election was decided.

I understand your point, but I really don't see this as a slam dunk triumph for the Dems.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-27-2019, 07:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't see a vote to impeachment as a definite win for the Dems.  As you rightly allude to, it will be political theater, which can always backfire.  It would also fire up Trump's base and people leaning that way.  It would be very easy to paint the Dems as attempting to usurp the POTUS and subvert democracy.  This type of thing would be red meat for right leaning voters.  It really hurts how this would be perceived because there's been talk of impeaching Trump from the minute the election was decided.

I understand your point, but I really don't see this as a slam dunk triumph for the Dems.

I would rather the southern district draw out the charitable foundation investigation investigation until after he's out of office so they can send his fat petulant ass straight to prison.  


I'd rather reduce the chances of pardoning him.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-27-2019, 07:22 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I would rather the southern district draw out the charitable foundation investigation investigation until after he's out of office so they can send his fat petulant ass straight to prison.  


I'd rather reduce the chances of pardoning him.

If that was a person's goal that would be a smarter way to do it.  This raises an interesting thought, though.  Could Trump admit to and/or pardon himself for criminal activity before an investigation was even made or charges subsequently filed?  

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 07:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't see a vote to impeachment as a definite win for the Dems.  As you rightly allude to, it will be political theater, which can always backfire.  It would also fire up Trump's base and people leaning that way.  It would be very easy to paint the Dems as attempting to usurp the POTUS and subvert democracy.  This type of thing would be red meat for right leaning voters.  It really hurts how this would be perceived because there's been talk of impeaching Trump from the minute the election was decided.

I understand your point, but I really don't see this as a slam dunk triumph for the Dems.

I think his popularity levels make it better for the Dems than it was for the Republicans and Clinton. But it is true that yelling impeachment before he even took the oath will end up looking bad and completely political for them if they ever did impeach him. I just think they are laying the groundwork in case they ever choose to go for it. Cohens testimony will certainly be used as a basis.

[BmorePat87]

(02-27-2019, 07:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't see a vote to impeachment as a definite win for the Dems.  As you rightly allude to, it will be political theater, which can always backfire.  It would also fire up Trump's base and people leaning that way.  It would be very easy to paint the Dems as attempting to usurp the POTUS and subvert democracy.  This type of thing would be red meat for right leaning voters.  It really hurts how this would be perceived because there's been talk of impeaching Trump from the minute the election was decided.

I understand your point, but I really don't see this as a slam dunk triumph for the Dems.

Didn't impeachment do wonders for Clinton's favorability? 

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 07:02 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, but an impeachment in the house doesn't actually do anything unless the Senate agrees to convict, which requires a super majority. So removing him from office is virtually impossible.

Not that I disagree with you. It'd be great if the House would impeach him. But they have the numbers to do it right now, so the barrier to removal is in the Senate, in my opinion.

See I don’t think it’s impossible. These are all self-preserving politicians first and foremost. They’ll throw him to the side in a heartbeat if they think they are in jeopardy.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 07:05 PM)jj22 Wrote: No, it was reinvestigated when Clinton won Presidency. That was investigation 773 out of 1500+, but it was an expansion of investigation 227 since that investigation didn't turn anything up.

I may be off my investigation numbers as we are dealing in the thousands, but when Bill won Presidency, they reopened all that stuff. Which is what you are reading. The original scandal and investigations into it began in the 70's.

No it was a continuation of an investigation started in 1992 by someone investigating the Savings and Loan. Remember the indictments that came from this. It wasn’t some political witch hunt.

[Belsnickel]

(02-27-2019, 07:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't see a vote to impeachment as a definite win for the Dems.  As you rightly allude to, it will be political theater, which can always backfire.  It would also fire up Trump's base and people leaning that way.  It would be very easy to paint the Dems as attempting to usurp the POTUS and subvert democracy.  This type of thing would be red meat for right leaning voters.  It really hurts how this would be perceived because there's been talk of impeaching Trump from the minute the election was decided.

I understand your point, but I really don't see this as a slam dunk triumph for the Dems.

I am of the opinion that impeachment proceedings should begin if, and only if, Mueller comes out with a report that says (paraphrasing here): under normal circumstances I would file an indictment against Trump, but because of DoJ policy I cannot proceed.

If that were to happen, then it is entirely appropriate for impeachment proceedings to occur and it would be difficult for all but the most ardent MAGA blowhards diehards to deny the legitimacy of the proceedings. Short of that, though, the proceedings would risk further dividing the country in a dangerous way.

(02-27-2019, 07:22 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I would rather the southern district draw out the charitable foundation investigation investigation until after he's out of office so they can send his fat petulant ass straight to prison.  

I'd rather reduce the chances of pardoning him.

If he wins a second term, there may be that sticky wicket of the statute of limitations.

(02-27-2019, 07:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If that was a person's goal that would be a smarter way to do it.  This raises an interesting thought, though.  Could Trump admit to and/or pardon himself for criminal activity before an investigation was even made or charges subsequently filed?  

I believe that a preemptive pardon is not an option, and I think (but could be wrong) that a self-pardon is also off the table.

[*bfine32*]

Hell, I know I'm ready for President Pence.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 10:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, I know I'm ready for President Pence.

Yup. Take that in a heartbeat.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-27-2019, 10:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If he wins a second term, there may be that sticky wicket of the statute of limitations.
.

I’m confident he will continue breaking laws. There is no statute of limitations for purely corrupt, shitty people.

And if he wins again, I hope I would have the foresight to give in and start training bears in hats to walk on balls and anticipate of the complete handing over of our great nation.

[BmorePat87]

(02-27-2019, 05:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I like how Meadows kept attacking him and calling him a liar over a form when in reality Meadows was wrong and Cohen filled it out correctly.

When the vice chair clarified during her time that Meadows was incorrect, you can see him on camera wink at another Republican.

Mark Meadows winks after he is caught in a lie about the disclosure form pic.twitter.com/cf6V8zbqe3

— (((yoni brander))) (@yonibrander) February 27, 2019

Mark Meadows later was upset at the suggestion of Rashida Tlaib that some may consider it racist to bring a black woman who knows Trump as a "prop" to prove he can't be racist if he has a black aide. 

Mark Meadows wanted to assure everyone he wasn't, especially since Elijah Cummings is one of his best friends.

Mark Meadows, however, said this about Obama in 2012: "What we're going to do is take back our country. 2012 is the time to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is". It was met with applause as he stood next to the "Tea Party Express" bus. 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/02/28/mark-meadows-obama-kenya-2012-vpx.cnn

[Au165]

If he committed crimes in the state of New York his pardon powers do not work on those charges filed by the state. I think it's much more likely he goes down on state charges then federal ones.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-28-2019, 09:13 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Mark Meadows later was upset at the suggestion of Rashida Tlaib that some may consider it racist to bring a black woman who knows Trump as a "prop" to prove he can't be racist if he has a black aide. 

Mark Meadows wanted to assure everyone he wasn't, especially since Elijah Cummings is one of his best friends.

Mark Meadows, however, said this about Obama in 2012: "What we're going to do is take back our country. 2012 is the time to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is". It was met with applause as he stood next to the "Tea Party Express" bus. 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/02/28/mark-meadows-obama-kenya-2012-vpx.cnn

during his attempt to prove its not a racist act to use a black aide as a prop in the matter, he invoked his grandchildren of color.  "not a lot of people know that about me"  he said...  as if it was some sort of family shame or something. 

it was really quite telling, the discrepancy there.  to not even understand how that could be interpreted as disrespectful.  unreal.

[CKwi88]

They just took the "I have a black friend" card to a whole new level