Impeachment Hearings

[hollodero]

(12-04-2019, 12:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well the gop is doing their best to stop the next public hearings from even starting.

Also (I was only half paying attention when it started) was that Jim Jordan yelling again?

Nope, that was a guy named Collins. Full of fake outrage.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-04-2019, 10:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How does the media prevent you and other “independents” from forming a third party?

That's not difficult to answer.  Without a person with very deep pockets propping it up financially and buying ad space a third party would need media attention and buzz to gain any kind of traction.  Not to mention that both the GOP and Dems would actively work to squash such an effort, so MSNBC and Fox would be instantly hostile.  The media to a large extent controls who gets traction.  AOC is a great example.  Without the media blowing her up she's just another Dem congresswoman from a deep blue district.  The large media companies largely control what stories get promoted and how they are covered.  Thankfully, for those who care to look, there are plenty of alternatives, but finding them takes some effort and most people don't care to make such an effort or even understand why they should.

[GMDino]

(12-04-2019, 12:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: Nope, that was a guy named Collins. Full of fake outrage.

Yeah, just saw that.

Doug Collins is making a mockery out of this pic.twitter.com/wkl6Bica15

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 4, 2019

 

[GMDino]

gop, unprepared for anything except to try and attack people...and getting shut down right out of the gate.

Prof #karlan just tore @RepDougCollins a new puckered star live #ImpeachingHearings pic.twitter.com/G9y99OCWeu

— ALT-immigration ? #IAmDevinNunesCow (@ALT_uscis) December 4, 2019

 

[jj22]

GOP is embarrassingly getting shut down. They are really ill prepared or just can't defend Trump.

[hollodero]

It is a bit weird how some of your most most consequential legal questions seem to boil down to a battle of educated guesses about what possibly was within a founders' mind 230 years ago.

Also, the Republican got an awful chair. The scandals keep on coming.

[GMDino]

Finally SOMEONE brought up Obama...lol.

[GMDino]

So the gop witness is suggesting there were not many impeachments because congress refrained from impeaching rather than that there were not impeachable offenses.

Which of course says nothing about what Trump has done and admitted to.

[*bfine32*]

(12-04-2019, 12:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'd appreciate it if you could read without the orange colored glasses but you can lead a horse to water and all that....

I did read I asked the question do you think Z was lying.

Hollo said Yes, you said No. What is there to interpret?

[GMDino]

The gop is just so disingenuous with this Biden/corruption stuff.

That the Trump minions fall for it is sad.

[GMDino]

Prof Turley starts by saying this impeachment hearing is similar to Clinton’s. Of course it’s not. Clinton didn’t use the power of the presidency to try to extract valuable help for his re-election campaign from a foreign leader & endangering our national security to do so.

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) December 4, 2019

 

[*michaelsean*]

(12-04-2019, 03:39 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Prof Turley starts by saying this impeachment hearing is similar to Clinton’s. Of course it’s not. Clinton didn’t use the power of the presidency to try to extract valuable help for his re-election campaign from a foreign leader & endangering our national security to do so.

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) December 4, 2019

 

I guess someone needs to explain to Joyce the difference between "hearing" and "charges".

[Vas Deferens]

Gohmert is the prototypical high functioning idiot

[GMDino]

(12-04-2019, 05:11 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Gohmert is the prototypical high functioning idiot

Gaetz: "Hold my beer"

Matt Gaetz closes by threatening to ... [quints at notes] .... impeach the ghost of President Obama pic.twitter.com/ppBjRCC9em

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 4, 2019

 

[GMDino]

the gop is now officially a cult.

.@RepMcClintock grills the witnesses about how they voted in 2016 pic.twitter.com/nJSyztU28I

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 4, 2019

 

[Benton]

(12-04-2019, 07:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: the gop is now officially a cult.

.@RepMcClintock grills the witnesses about how they voted in 2016 pic.twitter.com/nJSyztU28I

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 4, 2019

 

Tomorrow's headline: rep. Gaetz sponsors bill to rename all future democrat presidential candidates "Obama was a terrorist Benghazi".

[Belsnickel]

(12-04-2019, 03:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: So the gop witness is suggesting there were not many impeachments because congress refrained from impeaching rather than that there were not impeachable offenses.

Which of course says nothing about what Trump has done and admitted to.

Well, Congress determines what an impeachable offense is. So if Congress refrains from impeaching, then there was not an impeachable offense. Impeachment is a completely political question which is why these particular hearings with the law experts are asinine to me. I understand why they are doing it because they are hoping this will move the needle for the ill-informed, but as someone that has a pretty decent grasp on the issue of impeachment this is just ridiculous.

[hollodero]

(12-04-2019, 10:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, Congress determines what an impeachable offense is. So if Congress refrains from impeaching, then there was not an impeachable offense. Impeachment is a completely political question which is why these particular hearings with the law experts are asinine to me. I understand why they are doing it because they are hoping this will move the needle for the ill-informed, but as someone that has a pretty decent grasp on the issue of impeachment this is just ridiculous.

I thought it fitting to let some educated non-politicians weigh in. It contradicts the baseless political witch hunt narrative quite effectifely.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-04-2019, 10:23 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'd disagree. We saw two weeks of hearing showing career staffers expressed concern over what they saw as a president putting his personal and political interests above those of public concern.

Totally disagree.  This is what I said 3 years ago, and was mocked for it.  Foreign policy is run by career staffers - and when you think about it, totally makes perfect sense.  I couldn't have made a better argument for that than these hearings proved.  Again, common sense.  But the "personal gain" is actually unproven and unverified.  But what we got was a parade of career staffers who felt threatened by what they perceived as a new direction from the POTUS....a new perceived direction that proved to be imagined.

It was blatantly clear again and again that the major fault was Trump didn't follow the lead of the career staffers.  And - spolier alert - it didn't really matter and he actually did eventually fall in line.  I've made this point many times and I don't know how it's even still a debate.  It was draw dropping (and vindication) when it was basically shown, without contest, that career staffers - and not the POTUS - run foreign policy.  It was subtle, and flew over the heads of most.

The real power is in Congress.  Trump erased everything Obama did in 12 months, except ACA (which was a legislative act).  Trump's foreign policy actions/accomplishments - for all the fanfare - have, much like Obama's, amounted to nothing.  Trivial and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

[Belsnickel]

(12-05-2019, 06:57 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Totally disagree.  This is what I said 3 years ago, and was mocked for it.  Foreign policy is run by career staffers - and when you think about it, totally makes perfect sense.  I couldn't have made a better argument for that than these hearings proved.  Again, common sense.  But the "personal gain" is actually unproven and unverified.  But what we got was a parade of career staffers who felt threatened by what they perceived as a new direction from the POTUS....a new perceived direction that proved to be imagined.

It was blatantly clear again and again that the major fault was Trump didn't follow the lead of the career staffers.  And - spolier alert - it didn't really matter and he actually did eventually fall in line.  I've made this point many times and I don't know how it's even still a debate.  It was draw dropping (and vindication) when it was basically shown, without contest, that career staffers - and not the POTUS - run foreign policy.  It was subtle, and flew over the heads of most.

The real power is in Congress.  Trump erased everything Obama did in 12 months, except ACA (which was a legislative act).  Trump's foreign policy actions/accomplishments - for all the fanfare - have, much like Obama's, amounted to nothing.  Trivial and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

Well, we didn't see all career staffers. We saw a political appointee state that the White House, i.e. Trump, was using the power and authority of the office to try to benefit Trump politically. That is also what the career staffers were saying.

Also, spoiler alert, if you attempt to rob a bank, or kill someone, or anything, you are still charged with the crime even if you fail. Just because you're bad at corruption and didn't get what you want doesn't mean you didn't commit the offense. Just because he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar (because he released the aid after he was told of the whistleblower complaint) and decided to release the cookie before pulling his hand out doesn't mean him going "See! No cookie!" is a valid defense.

You're also not giving any credit to the fact that many of these career staffers were in a position where the official administration position was one thing and then there was a second avenue of foreign policy that was being run counter to the official US positions. The career staffers that we have seen were all conducting foreign policy that had been established through official channels, which included the White House and Congress.