On this impeachment thing
- Thread starter kescwi
- Start date
then vote. why all the closed door kgb style interviews and meetings? can't even be bipartisan? Nobody finds that slightly suspicious? the vote will be the same regardless of any investigation if the democrats build this case on their own. house will impeach, senate will acquit instantly. so why the show? won't help warren one bit.
Holy hell.
It is bipartisan. 1 in 4 House Republicans are part of these depositions and are given equal time to ask questions as the Democrats.. Heck even 13 of the 41 Republicans that stormed the SCIF yesterday already had the right to be in those hearings.... they stormed to just be part of a circus stunt.
The depositions happen in secret so there can't be blatant witness tampering where future witnesses tailor their stories to match/fit testimony stated previous by other witnesses.
It's the exact same way the Benghazi hearing were held.
It's the exact same way any of these process happens. Let me try to create analogy that maybe will make these easier
Step 1: Police/DA investigate a crime by talking to witnesses privately and gather evidence <-- this is where we are now
Step 2: Police/DA will present their evidence to a grand jury <-- this is where the actual Articles of Impeachment will be presented to the full House. Witnesses that were previously disposed will be called back for public hearings.
Step 3: The grand jury will decide whether or not to indict <-- this is the Impeachment vote that will be under taken by the whole House.
Step 4: If impeached there will be a trial <-- this happens in the Senate after the Impeachment vote, and will be presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts in which the House will act as the DA and the Senate members will act as the Jury.
Step 5: The jury renders a verdict <--- this is where the Senate will render their verdict.
We are in Step 1 people. Investigations are not public for many reasons. You don't make them public at this stage.
This isn't that freaking hard. How can so many people associated with Purdue not make it through 10th grade?!?!?! This is Civics/Social Studies 101.
Say WHAT ???!!!
Check out today's tape review of Rep. Trey Gowdy (R) extolling the virtues of the CLOSED DOOR HEARINGS in the multiple Benghazi proceedings. How they cut way down on partisan grandstanding and how much more EFFECTIVE they were in eliciting valuable testimony.
KGB-style hearings ???!!! You're literally insane.
All three House Committees that are doing interviews, so far, have all members present....BOTH Democratic AND Republican. ALL ask questions and follow-up questions. You DO know this, right ?? You DO know that if there were any effective rebuttals to what has been learned, so far, from the hearings.....that GOPers WOULD HAVE ALREADY begun their PR battle, as a result ?? " Can't even be bipartisan ", you ask ??Hilarious.
Sorry for your team being backed up to your 5-yard line, with a worn-down defense.
Not to worry......the brilliant Rudy G. will eventually be in the spotlight !!!
Last edited:
I said it was an analogy. Your comprehension is awful.
you crybabies have been wrong for 3+ years. why would I believe YOU????....????....???? ????? ...??????? ??? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
You don't have to believe us.
We state facts which equate to reality.
You live in a world of fantasy and faith and look for things that can fit what you already "believe"
There in lies the difference between me and you.
There are facts and reality. And there are truths/beliefs. I can forego the latter and set mine aside and actually take a moment to comprehend and understand basic facts.
You dont' have to believe that the earth is a sphere, that we landed on the moon, or that the current depositions shouldn't be public.
The facts and reality are what they are ... but you go on believing your own truth.
Perhaps an excerpt from my post on a different thread may apply here -
- if you were to put the process in the lens of the criminal process (which it doesn't rise to) it is akin to the Grand Jury charging process. They are closed hearings, sworn to secrecy, no right by defendant to attend, no right for attorneys of defendant to attend, no right for outsiders to question witnesses, no right to prior notice to defendant of potential witnesses or testimony or evidence or even the convening of the investigation, no right of confrontation, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard, hearsay admissibility - all clearly acceptable and Constitutional where not only a job is at risk but where incarceration for life and even a death penalty can be imposed
If your facts were facts, trump would be in jail by now. Turns out, you're not so factual.
Of course it's not a criminal proceeding, but criminal proceedings actually have much higher standards and even in the criminal charging process this procedure is well recognized as appropriate.
Then take the freakin time to do some research on your own and become educated on the process before repeating the BS talking points being fed to you by the Trump right. JFC.
I'm not saying that they physically can not do it, I'm just saying if they are REALLY TRULY interested in getting this guy out, they would want to be as transparent as possible. This isn't some tax evasion charge, you're talking about removing the duly elected leader of the free world. This looks and smells like a show.
And as explained to you already ... that part comes later.
This isn't freaking new.
Ken Starr?
Robert Mueller?
Benghazzi?
etc etc etc.
This is how the process works. You didn't see any of these doing their work in public initially.
"Trump IN JAIL, BY NOW" ??
His attorneys have been in court, this week, arguing that their client cannot be prosecuted for ANY crime while in office, up to and INCLUDING, the heartwarming act of murdering someone, in plain sight, on Fifth Avenue.
Poster Child : "Above the Law "
Special counsels are generally called upon as a means of showing a lack of partisanship.And as explained to you already ... that part comes later.
This isn't freaking new.
Ken Starr?
Robert Mueller?
Benghazzi?
etc etc etc.
This is how the process works. You didn't see any of these doing their work in public initially.
....... ohhhh okay sure. I just listened to the GOP and this President for 18 months attack Robert Mueller and the special counsel over partisanship.
I've also listened to this President, both prior and during his tenure, attack many institutions that used to be on the record of lacking partisanship. Things like the FBI, the CIA, the NSC, the State Department. All used to be seen as entities that were non-partisan.
This President has come in and tried to overtly and covertly undermine those principles -- and you and many of his supporters have been endorsing it.
So excuse me, but it's laughable and real rich listening to a Trumper tell us about what lacks partisanship.
The New York Times has an article describing the unsuccessful attempt to prevent Pentagon official Laura Cooper from testifying before Congress that includes the Defense Department letter.
I just want to keep our ardent Trump supporters in the loop of fake CNN news here
Last edited:
Before the right-wingers fulminate about the NYT publishing an ARTICLE about the warning to Laura Cooper, all media now have the actual warning letter sent by the White House.
NYT had a download link with the letter and its attachments, about 45 or 50 pages total.
WaPo article also suggests possibility of White House action involving Ukraine trade being used to leverage an investigation.
Wait, is Meadows here admitting that Republicans HAVE been in the “secret meetings” and have been questioning witnesses?
It seems like all the Republican arguments about the process have been completely dishonest. What would the world be like if the right wing had a smidge of intellectual honesty?
I believe there is an old bromide that someone should have mentioned -
"Be careful what you ask for, you may get it..."
EU Amb. Gordon Sondland now tells Congress that there was a quid pro quo involved with Ukraine after previously denying it, Wall Street Journal reports.
Looks like Sondland realized that with all the other witnesses telling the truth, committing perjury was a bad idea.
Looks like Sondland realized that with all the other witnesses telling the truth, committing perjury was a bad idea.
As the number of people involved in this inquiry increases, here is a good resource to stay informed
Ah, the magnificant six is now the not so magnificant seven. Keep watching MSNBC and CNN boys and girls and try not to jump off the bridge when Trump wins a second term overwhelmingly. Schiff's circus is a sham for certain. So far...he said that he said that she said that a third cousin. Russia failed. Ol' Strormy failed. This will fail.
Okay enough. In no way am I afraid of anything and I'm far from stupid. Your name calling is typical of a person who has no concrete arguement that adds anything of importance to a discussion.
Keep hanging on to those pipe dreams that Trump will be forced from office by heresay. It ain't gonna happen.
All the evidence would show that’s simply not true. You lack basic comprehension skills, have shown no ability to logically think through an issue. You’ll post that Clinton only won 57 counties because you were too stupid to realize it wasn’t true. You’ll post that Schiff’s staff helped write the whistleblower complaint because you lack the mental capacity to realize there isn’t a shred of evidence to support that.
You call it hearsay because once again you are completely ignorant about the topic of discussion and don’t realize that the people testifying aren’t just testifying about hearsay.
From the mind of Twindegrees, it’s not something normal people will understand.
