ADVERTISEMENT

On this impeachment thing

I know I’m not insulting you. Calling a stupid rambling ass a stupid rambling ass is the opposite of an insult.

But I’m past giving you any breaks. When your main goal is to “own the libs “ vs caring about the mockery he’s making out of his presidency and our standing in the world, then you have some issues. At the end of the day, that’s on you and does nothing more than show that you don’t really care about this country. As for the rest of the nonsense you posted, you can wad it up, shove down your throat and choke on it.
It's not me that is making a mockery of anything. It's you and the other Trump haters doing that. He's done nothing impeachable, yet you continue to bitch, moan, and lie about POTUS and Mike Pence. Your hatred and fear of anything out of your acceptance is pathetic. As for this country, I love every part of it....and once again you just pull it out of your ass

Oh, one other thing....
At least 25 Democrats in the House have indicated publicly they would vote to impeach Trump. Separately, at least 227 House Democrats publicly have supported opening an impeachment inquiry into the president.

In 1998, the House of Representatives approved two of four articles of impeachment against then-President Bill Clinton, sending them to the Senate where they were defeated.
Democrats could vote differently on various impeachment articles against Trump, were they to be brought forth.

Anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 already had questionable morals. Anyone who still supports him now clearly has no morals and doesn’t care about the damage that’s being done to our democracy.

I’m not sure what your post about the number of Democrats wanting an inquiry into impeachment. We already know this.

Also, why are you randomly bringing up Pence? He’s a horrible, terrible person for sure and i hope he goes straight to hell when he kicks it too but he’s not who we’ve been talking about here. You really struggle staying on topic at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
Anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 already had questionable morals. Anyone who still supports him now clearly has no morals and doesn’t care about the damage that’s being done to our democracy.

I’m not sure what your post about the number of Democrats wanting an inquiry into impeachment. We already know this.

Also, why are you randomly bringing up Pence? He’s a horrible, terrible person for sure and i hope he goes straight to hell when he kicks it too but he’s not who we’ve been talking about here. You really struggle staying on topic at all.
You've constantly berated Mike Pence...a man I know and respect. He left a surplus for the state, he'd started the road plans you're seeing today. And the only damn thing you can have against the man is because his religion speaks against homosexuality. Maybe....just maybe...if you were as tolerant as you want others to be, you wouldn't be so "offended". As for questionable morals....you're wrong again. As for no morals, you're wrong another time. Get over it man....you have no clue about Pence. Oh, and here's a bit of reading material for you: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...anything-to-fear-from-a-mike-pence-presidency
 
You've constantly berated Mike Pence...a man I know and respect. He left a surplus for the state, he'd started the road plans you're seeing today. And the only damn thing you can have against the man is because his religion speaks against homosexuality. Maybe....just maybe...if you were as tolerant as you want others to be, you wouldn't be so "offended". As for questionable morals....you're wrong again. As for no morals, you're wrong another time. Get over it man....you have no clue about Pence. Oh, and here's a bit of reading material for you: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...anything-to-fear-from-a-mike-pence-presidency

Good god, I can practically hear the sniffling as you try to defend him. Mike Pence is a shit-stain on humanity and will be remembered as such (well, and as a major homophobe in a suit that nuzzles Trump's orange ass all day). I could not give two craps that you know and respect him; what I will say is that if you consider him a friend, then you need better friends.
 
Senators Jordan, Rubio, and Blunt all said Trump was joking when he said this.
They obviously think all of us are as stupid as the Trumpers.
Does he sound like he's joking?

 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
Good god, I can practically hear the sniffling as you try to defend him. Mike Pence is a shit-stain on humanity and will be remembered as such (well, and as a major homophobe in a suit that nuzzles Trump's orange ass all day). I could not give two craps that you know and respect him; what I will say is that if you consider him a friend, then you need better friends.
you know, I'll be the judge of who my friends are. And I'll tell you one thing....I'm a lot more tolerant towards them than you appear to be. Now cry me another river of oppression.
 
you know, I'll be the judge of who my friends are. And I'll tell you one thing....I'm a lot more tolerant towards them than you appear to be. Now cry me another river of oppression.

Why would I need to be tolerant of your friends if they're a bunch of homophobes and bigots and support people like Trump who are making a mockery of this country? There are bigger fish to fry and I wouldn't want to associate with people like that anyway. Do you honestly think I care who your friends are? That would imply I care about you. I don't.
 
Why would I need to be tolerant of your friends if they're a bunch of homophobes and bigots and support people like Trump who are making a mockery of this country? There are bigger fish to fry and I wouldn't want to associate with people like that anyway. Do you honestly think I care who your friends are? That would imply I care about you. I don't.
You know, you're such a caustic ass....
 
Senators Jordan, Rubio, and Blunt all said Trump was joking when he said this.
They obviously think all of us are as stupid as the Trumpers.
Does he sound like he's joking?


It feels like yesterday we were having the same conversation about Trump "joking" in asking Russia to find Hillary's emails...

Trump has a very underrated sense of humor, apparently.
 
You've constantly berated Mike Pence...a man I know and respect. He left a surplus for the state, he'd started the road plans you're seeing today. And the only damn thing you can have against the man is because his religion speaks against homosexuality. Maybe....just maybe...if you were as tolerant as you want others to be, you wouldn't be so "offended". As for questionable morals....you're wrong again. As for no morals, you're wrong another time. Get over it man....you have no clue about Pence. Oh, and here's a bit of reading material for you: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...anything-to-fear-from-a-mike-pence-presidency
(The above your post to PurdueFan1)
fyi: editorial content from the Washington Examiner would be something that you would comfortably suggest to one's hyper-conservative friends to read. For PurdueFan1, me and others , here , with triple-digit+ IQ's, the nation's newspapers claiming that Global Warming is a hoax , are not the ones which would prove helpful for us to read. Just sayin'.
 
Only to people who deserve it. Pat yourself on the back.
+Wow....again, you're such an ass.
(The above your post to PurdueFan1)
fyi: editorial content from the Washington Examiner would be something that you would comfortably suggest to one's hyper-conservative friends to read. For PurdueFan1, me and others , here , with triple-digit+ IQ's, the nation's newspapers claiming that Global Warming is a hoax , are not the ones which would prove helpful for us to read. Just sayin'.
A triple digit IQ is as low as 100. Congrats to all of you. I would have guessed a bit lower, but you win.
 
(Twin: A triple digit IQ is as low as 100. Congrats to all of you. I would have guessed a bit lower, but you win).[/QUOTE]
The point being, for the terminally impervious like you and your DOUBLE-digit IQ friends, newspapers with editorial boards made up of Climate Change Deniers are of no use to list as sources for your posts that are intended to actually educate somebody.
 
In an article on CNN today, they are discussing why the Democrats are not going to officially vote for an inquiry. I found this little tidbit interesting:

"During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too. But the House rules have changed since the last impeachment of a president more than two decades ago. In this Congress, the House majority already has unilateral subpoena power, a rule change that was made when Republicans last controlled the House, so Democrats don't need to pass any resolution to grant those powers."

Assuming that the above is a true statement, this is kinda like how Democrats opened up the nuclear option and it is now being used against them. Republicans probably thought this subpoena power option was a good idea at the time, but it puts Trump in a bad legal position now. At this point, I believe that their strategy is to do everything in their power to send this to the courts, knowing full well that it is a losing scenario, but it gives them time to both A) Build a more comprehensive legal defense, B) Gives them time to dig up evidence that they can release to change the current media narrative and C) Gives them time to both uncover the whistleblowers / leakers and continue a discrediting campaign against their actions.
 
In an article on CNN today, they are discussing why the Democrats are not going to officially vote for an inquiry. I found this little tidbit interesting:

"During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too. But the House rules have changed since the last impeachment of a president more than two decades ago. In this Congress, the House majority already has unilateral subpoena power, a rule change that was made when Republicans last controlled the House, so Democrats don't need to pass any resolution to grant those powers."

Assuming that the above is a true statement, this is kinda like how Democrats opened up the nuclear option and it is now being used against them. Republicans probably thought this subpoena power option was a good idea at the time, but it puts Trump in a bad legal position now. At this point, I believe that their strategy is to do everything in their power to send this to the courts, knowing full well that it is a losing scenario, but it gives them time to both A) Build a more comprehensive legal defense, B) Gives them time to dig up evidence that they can release to change the current media narrative and C) Gives them time to both uncover the whistleblowers / leakers and continue a discrediting campaign against their actions.

Agreed on all fronts.

I watched a little Fox News yesterday and on Outnumbered they were discussing the strategy as "Stall, Obfuscate, Attack, Repeat." That's the only strategy that can be employed when the WH and GOP know they can't win on the merits or facts of the case.

I believe their goal is to create pure exhaustion among the media and people and hope that is enough to get people to tune out and let this blow over.

It's worked before, and it could work again.

We'll see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
In an article on CNN today, they are discussing why the Democrats are not going to officially vote for an inquiry. I found this little tidbit interesting:

"During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too. But the House rules have changed since the last impeachment of a president more than two decades ago. In this Congress, the House majority already has unilateral subpoena power, a rule change that was made when Republicans last controlled the House, so Democrats don't need to pass any resolution to grant those powers."

Assuming that the above is a true statement, this is kinda like how Democrats opened up the nuclear option and it is now being used against them. Republicans probably thought this subpoena power option was a good idea at the time, but it puts Trump in a bad legal position now. At this point, I believe that their strategy is to do everything in their power to send this to the courts, knowing full well that it is a losing scenario, but it gives them time to both A) Build a more comprehensive legal defense, B) Gives them time to dig up evidence that they can release to change the current media narrative and C) Gives them time to both uncover the whistleblowers / leakers and continue a discrediting campaign against their actions.

Accurate summary, if not dead on the money in most assertions.
1) Not sure there's unanimity among GOP strategists that eventual court rulings about their stonewalling maneuvers
will prove to be a "losing scenario ". At this point.
2) Would not one current opinion among House Democratic strategists be that a formal Impeachment Declaration could bring about the possibility of the Minority's subpoena power being used to somehow bring the Biden "investigation" into The Inquiry ??
3) What happens procedurally in the next several months will undoubtedly be part of Washington's catchphrase, later, regarding political grudges....
" What goes around...comes around"
 
Agree as well. The Dems have to keep this moving and going to court may be the only remedy......but that takes time. What's the possibility of expedited judgements, how does that work? @70boiler , can you help me out here?
 
In an article on CNN today, they are discussing why the Democrats are not going to officially vote for an inquiry. I found this little tidbit interesting:

"During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too. But the House rules have changed since the last impeachment of a president more than two decades ago. In this Congress, the House majority already has unilateral subpoena power, a rule change that was made when Republicans last controlled the House, so Democrats don't need to pass any resolution to grant those powers."

Assuming that the above is a true statement, this is kinda like how Democrats opened up the nuclear option and it is now being used against them. Republicans probably thought this subpoena power option was a good idea at the time, but it puts Trump in a bad legal position now. At this point, I believe that their strategy is to do everything in their power to send this to the courts, knowing full well that it is a losing scenario, but it gives them time to both A) Build a more comprehensive legal defense, B) Gives them time to dig up evidence that they can release to change the current media narrative and C) Gives them time to both uncover the whistleblowers / leakers and continue a discrediting campaign against their actions.
Most of this is true. But the question will be can they attach the word "impeachment" to their subpoenas without drawing a constitutional challenge, since that power is limited to the "house" and not a committee or person. Subpoena power may be unilateral, but that does not mean unlimited in scope.
 
Agree as well. The Dems have to keep this moving and going to court may be the only remedy......but that takes time. What's the possibility of expedited judgements, how does that work? @70boiler , can you help me out here?
Each court controls its own scheduling priorities. And, of course, there is the appeal process. It's a system that, in general, doesn't place huge value on speed, however, if the specific judge/judges view a need for expedition, then things can proceed at virtual breakneck speed.
 
Each court controls its own scheduling priorities. And, of course, there is the appeal process. It's a system that, in general, doesn't place huge value on speed, however, if the specific judge/judges view a need for expedition, then things can proceed at virtual breakneck speed.

Isn't congress able to request to bypass the traditional process and go right to the Supreme Court?

I thought I had read that during the Nixon case they went from the District Court right in to the Supreme Court, which meant from the time the case was filed and the Supreme Court released their verdict only 3 months had passed.
 
Isn't congress able to request to bypass the traditional process and go right to the Supreme Court?

I thought I had read that during the Nixon case they went from the District Court right in to the Supreme Court, which meant from the time the case was filed and the Supreme Court released their verdict only 3 months had passed.
It's the Court's call whether it wants to accept nearly all things. Asking is asking.
 
Imho, and I don't mean my political opinion, virtually every Trump argument that I have seen is a losing proposition.
- There are no rules set out in the Constitution as to how the House is required to mechanically proceed.
- Any attempt to have a court to define Congressional rules for Impeachment inquiry would be seen by courts as a violation of separation of powers.
- Subpoena power rules have been amended by the House subsequent to previous impeachment actions and voting an inquiry is not required for subpoenae.
- Much like a grand jury proceeding, a defendant/impeachment respondent would have no right to be involved in the investigative/charging functions of the body.
- A defendant/impeachment respondent is not untitled to interfere with the investigative process and must surrender items properly pursued absent a recognized privilege.
- There have been very few, if any, actual privileges claimed in the necessary fashion, or not having been waived.
- Impeachment proceedings are in no way determinative from the existence or absence of any willingness to pursue claims or investigations of others.
- Interference by the executive with Congressional investigations are, in and of themselves, sufficient bases for articles of impeachment.
 
Additionally, I think that the President and his advisers may overestimate the support that they will receive from conservatives on the bench. I have come across a large number of quite conservative judges over the years. The one thing that I would say about virtually each one is that he/she believes deeply in the ideal of the rule of law, the mechanics of the law, and consistency of methodology as well as not overstepping. It is my belief that the vast majority of the judges that I have come across would be very unmoved by the "legal" arguments being put forward by the Administration, notwithstanding their view of party politics.
 
Holy chit man.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...set-give-testimony-giuliani-sondland-n1064846

Fiona Hill, who was until recently President Donald Trump’s top aide on Russia and Europe, plans to tell Congress that Rudy Giuliani and E.U. ambassador Gordon Sondland circumvented the National Security Council and the normal White House process to pursue a shadow policy on Ukraine, a person familiar with her expected testimony told NBC News.

Hill’s appearance next week before Congress has stoked fear among people close to the president, said a former senior White House official, given her central role overseeing Russia and Ukraine policy throughout most of the Trump administration.
 
Will be interesting to see if Pompeo lets Ambassador Yovanovitch testify tomorrow.
If they say no, would love to see her resign and testify anyway.
 
Will be interesting to see if Pompeo lets Ambassador Yovanovitch testify tomorrow.
If they say no, would love to see her resign and testify anyway.
From her opening statement



This is the kind of dedicated government professional Trump wants out of his admin.
His private lawyer can't run around doing his bidding behind the scenes when people like this are serving our country.
 
From her opening statement



This is the kind of dedicated government professional Trump wants out of his admin.
His private lawyer can't run around doing his bidding behind the scenes when people like this are serving our country.

Just broke that the WH and State Dept told her not to appear today. She appeared anyways.

That's extraordinary.

The dam is bursting -- and the WH is losing control.

.... Hard to believe how fast this is all moving. Can't even go a full day without multiple news stories breaking.
 
I guess those saying Sondland's texts proved there was no QPQ might want to reconsider their position.

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ll-congress-no-quid-pro-quo-from-trump-report



President Trump's ambassador to the European Union (EU), Gordon Sondland, plans to tell Congress this week that a text he sent denying understanding of quid pro quo between Trump and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky in a July phone call in July was dictated by Trump himself.

Regarding whether that is actually true, the person said, Sondland will not take an opinion, and instead will tell lawmakers that he worked at the direction of President Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to secure a statement from Ukraine's government confirming a criminal investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden.
 
I guess those saying Sondland's texts proved there was no QPQ might want to reconsider their position.

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ll-congress-no-quid-pro-quo-from-trump-report



President Trump's ambassador to the European Union (EU), Gordon Sondland, plans to tell Congress this week that a text he sent denying understanding of quid pro quo between Trump and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky in a July phone call in July was dictated by Trump himself.

Regarding whether that is actually true, the person said, Sondland will not take an opinion, and instead will tell lawmakers that he worked at the direction of President Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to secure a statement from Ukraine's government confirming a criminal investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden.
Lol...and it only took a mere 5 hours to state what the "previously established" policy and positions were.. yeah right.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT