Jump to content
modestobulldog

Game Thread: Impeachment

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

Jimmy Dore rips Democrats on impeachment

 

"Hi, I'm Jimmy Dore. I'm introducing myself because, unlike Geraldo, I've never had a big name. In fact, I don't even know who Jimmy Dore is. I'm just reading a telepromptor that says I'm Jimmy Dore."

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

I don't disagree.

But remember, what "stage" are we at in this?

We are in the "inquiry" stage (analogous to a Grand Jury Proceeding).   This is the fact gathering stage, and there is no benefit with having "expert witness" testify.   I mean, are are simply gathering evidence (real evidence, not expert opinions) to decide whether to have a vote on impeachment (which Nancy Pelosi announced she intends to do).

So, sure, allow expert witnesses AFTER the inquiry.

To use your analogy...

the expert witnesses were brought in to advise on whether to "indict" or not, so I would say they were quite relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

 

 


Stop trolling.

This is not an echo chamber---you've even stated as much. 

This is a place for posting media related to the impeachment process.

If you prefer to read the tweets and videos that you post on here, rather than the tweets and videos that I posted on here, then simply ignore my posts.   Not sure why you believe that only you are allowed to post Democrat related videos and tweets on here, and that everyone else isn't allowed to do the same.

 

Here's the difference, friend. My posts of tweets (and videos) are done in good faith. Are yours?

  • Cheers 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, THEUniversityofNevada said:

And there's the crux of the argument. I don't want Trump impeached because he sucks at his job, that's what elections are for. I believe the President put his personal interests above those of the American people and solicited foreign interference in the upcoming elections. I think those are the very definition of impeachable offenses. I'd go so far as the say those are the primary reasons the founders put impeachment into the Constitution. 

Plus he's obstructed justice or Congress with regard to both the Mueller investigation and investigation of the communications with Ukraine's government.

Trump won't be removed from office but there will be much future debate about whether he should have been and history won't be kind to Moscow Mitch.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2019 at 10:10 AM, toonkee said:

I post tweets in hopes someone such as yourself will read them, discuss them and even critique them, so we may all learn and grow together.

 

7 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Here's the difference, friend. My posts of tweets (and videos) are done in good faith. Are yours?

 

In the spirit of your post above, I simply plan on posting many, many more tweets and video clips, with the hope that you "will read them" so we can "discuss them and even critique them, so we may all learn and grow together."

And, you don't get to decide what has merit, and what is in good faith.   If we only allowed Democrat sympathetic tweets and videos on here, then that would be an echo chamber (we don't want that, do we?)

 

So, please don't engage in "concern trolling" about whether you think my posts should be allowed, and afford me to post all sorts of relevant tweets from great conservative media outlets to further the conversation.

Besides, as others have stated, I would have to post thousands, upon thousands of tweets and videos to catch up to the tweets and videos that others have posted already.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Yes. I think the courts would rule against Trump, and eventually the appeals would reach the Supreme Court. Whatever anyone might think about their judicial philosophy, Trump did not put Justices on the court sympathetic to his cause in this case. If he defied the Supreme Court he would be overwhelmingly washed in the Senate.

It wouldn’t get that far. Trump would turn over the documents and comply with the subpoenas. The only smart thing he did in this mess was release the transcript right away. It hurt him initially, but the bombshell was over and done with right away. Defying the court would be a needless self inflicted wound when already nobody cares that much about this scandal.

Thank you for your opinion but I'm not so sure. In my opinion I don't think Trump defying the courts would sway enough R voters to force the hands of the R senators, and I don't see why the R senators would do it for the sake of it being the right thing to do.  The evidence is already there for them to do the right thing and we know that's not a good enough reason for them.

So in the end we're getting all hung up on the oomph of an obstruction charge where 1) I say court involvement wouldn't matter in the end game or 2) you say courts would rule against Trump and he would comply...so a meaningless process dance. 

Maybe the dems best way forward is to not include obstruction in the articles and just ride with the abuse of power articles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, #1Stunner said:

 

 

In the spirit of your post above, I simply plan on posting many, many more tweets and video clips, with the hope that you "will read them" so we can "discuss them and even critique them, so we may all learn and grow together."

And, you don't get to decide what has merit, and what is in good faith.   If we only allowed Democrat sympathetic tweets and videos on here, then that would be an echo chamber (we don't want that, do we?)

 

So, please don't engage in "concern trolling" about whether you think my posts should be allowed, and afford me to post all sorts of relevant tweets from great conservative media outlets to further the conversation.

Besides, as others have stated, I would have to post thousands, upon thousands of tweets and videos to catch up to the tweets and videos that others have posted already.

 

It's good to have you back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, toonkee said:

To use your analogy...

the expert witnesses were brought in to advise on whether to "indict" or not, so I would say they were quite relevant.

Looking at analogy of a "Grand Jury" (which has been repeated on here hundreds of times)

There is no such thing as calling on "expert witnesses" to decide whether there is evidence to support charging someone with a crime.   You don't call an expert witness to offer their opinion in a police investigation or a grand jury proceeding.


Expert Witnesses only have value (and are only allowed) when the proceeding (trial) has already started.   At least that's my understanding---would have to ask the lawyers on here who might know more than me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, toonkee said:

It's good to have you back.

Thanks. 

 Please feel free to engage in the many, many, many tweets and videos I hope to offer on this thread.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

"Hi, I'm Jimmy Dore. I'm introducing myself because, unlike Geraldo, I've never had a big name. In fact, I don't even know who Jimmy Dore is. I'm just reading a telepromptor that says I'm Jimmy Dore."

Jimmy Dore is a liberal democrat, who has worked on the Young Turks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Dore

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, pokerider said:

Here's another article concerning impeachment, 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/06/impeaching-trump-may-not-accomplish-anything-at-all-for-democrats.html

1. Does this energize the Democrats for 2020, or take their eyes off the ball?
2. Do the Democrats really need more anti-Trump publicity?
3. This helps Trump… a little.
4. It’s not all about Trump.  
(ie. people actually care about real issues)

As with most conservatives, that blogger is oblivious about impeachment being not to gain the upper hand for the 2020 election but to do what is right.

But then I probably shouldn't expect anything else. Because for Moscow Mitch and his sycophants, what is right is irrelevant and the only thing which matters is keeping the Democrats from winning back the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

As with most conservatives, that blogger is oblivious about impeachment being not to gain the upper hand for the 2020 election but to do what is right.

But then I probably shouldn't expect anything else. Because for Moscow Mitch and his sycophants, what is right is irrelevant and the only thing which matters is keeping the Democrats from winning back the White House.

now your just spouting bullcrap.  the impeachment is entirely political.  If there were some actual impeachable offenses committed, then at least some republicans would be on-board with it.   

If Dems were the jury here, they would have literally convicted Trump first and then had their trial.  Thats how GD FKng biased this is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

Looking at analogy of a "Grand Jury" (which has been repeated on here hundreds of times)

There is no such thing as calling on "expert witnesses" to decide whether there is evidence to support charging someone with a crime.   You don't call an expert witness to offer their opinion in a police investigation or a grand jury proceeding.


Expert Witnesses only have value (and are only allowed) when the proceeding (trial) has already started.   At least that's my understanding---would have to ask the lawyers on here who might know more than me.

I'm not a member of the bar but can nevertheless confirm the accuracy of what you say. Accordingly, those law professors weren't called to influence members of the House, they were called to influence public opinion.

There's a reason Pelosi tried to downplay Nadler's role in all this. That is, the guy simply isn't as astute a lawyer as is Adam Schiff. Unlike Schiff, who was a federal prosecutor for more than a decade, Nadler never practiced law and it shows.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Thank you for your opinion but I'm not so sure. In my opinion I don't think Trump defying the courts would sway enough R voters to force the hands of the R senators, and I don't see why the R senators would do it for the sake of it being the right thing to do.  The evidence is already there for them to do the right thing and we know that's not a good enough reason for them.

So in the end we're getting all hung up on the oomph of an obstruction charge where 1) I say court involvement wouldn't matter in the end game or 2) you say courts would rule against Trump and he would comply...so a meaningless process dance. 

Maybe the dems best way forward is to not include obstruction in the articles and just ride with the abuse of power articles. 

That is ridiculous.  If he actually commits a crime then get rid of him.  The only "evidence" is the call transcript.  The witnesses called by the Democrats have all had to admit they have no first hand knowledge.

I am not a huge Trump fan, although I do find his ability to trigger leftists immensely entertaining.  I am not willing to have him impeached because he says mean things....which is what this is mostly about.  It is not the lies he tells that you don't like, it is the truths, no matter how boorish and non PC.  The press hate him because he does not dance to their tune and does not need them to get an unfiltered message out.  He never apologizes...even when he should...and never seems to pay a price for it, which drives the political class crazy.  They live for forced and insincere apologies.

I don't like Trump on a personal level, but that does not mean I am going to embrace Democrats and all of their nonsense.  In 2020, the choice is not going to be between Trump and George Washington or Trump and Abraham Lincoln.  It will be between Trump and mostly likely some deranged leftist Democrat.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

I'm not a member of the bar but can nevertheless confirm the accuracy of what you say. Accordingly, those law professors weren't called to influence members of the House, they were called to influence public opinion.

There's a reason Pelosi tried to downplay Nadler's role in all this. That is, the guy simply isn't as astute a lawyer as is Adam Schiff. Unlike Schiff, who was a federal prosecutor for more than a decade, Nadler never practiced law and it shows.

Thanks.

I have no problem with calling on experts at the trial stage (which, I understand would occur before the Senate).  

But this dog and pony show of having so called "experts" appear (hand picked law professors), give their two cents during the inquiry is simply a stunt to influence the public and media, and offers nothing to the process of gathering evidence to DECIDE if there is a basis to impeach.   Clearly BS.

I understand that both sides engage in these stupid stunts, but that doesn't excuse it.

 

Those law professors (so called experts) was a complete waste of time, and didn't help the Democrats' credibility IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

That is ridiculous.  If he actually commits a crime then get rid of him.  The only "evidence" is the call transcript.  The witnesses called by the Democrats have all had to admit they have no first hand knowledge.

I am not a huge Trump fan, although I do find his ability to trigger leftists immensely entertaining.  I am not willing to have him impeached because he says mean things....which is what this is mostly about.  It is not the lies he tells that you don't like, it is the truths, no matter how boorish and non PC.  The press hate him because he does not dance to their tune and does not need them to get an unfiltered message out.  He never apologizes...even when he should...and never seems to pay a price for it, which drives the political class crazy.  They live for forced and insincere apologies.

I don't like Trump on a personal level, but that does not mean I am going to embrace Democrats and all of their nonsense.  In 2020, the choice is not going to be between Trump and George Washington or Trump and Abraham Lincoln.  It will be between Trump and mostly likely some deranged leftist Democrat.

No, that isn't what this is about.  Even if you are 100% behind Trump staying, you can still be educated on what the inquiry is about and what evidence has been presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pokerider said:

now your just spouting bullcrap.  the impeachment is entirely political.  If there were some actual impeachable offenses committed, then at least some republicans would be on-board with it.   

If Dems were the jury here, they would have literally convicted Trump first and then had their trial.  Thats how GD FKng biased this is. 

I'll agree that the Dems lack objectivity but that's equally true of the Repubs. And although you will obviously disagree on this, IMO Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction and he has used the office of the presidency for personal gain in trying to use $400M of money allocated by the legislative branch designated largely for anti-tank missiles to allow an ally of ours to defend itself against a foe of ours to leverage a foreign government to announce its intention to investigate the family of the person Trump sees as the greatest threat to his reelection. Those are impeachable offenses which cannot be condoned if our Constitution is going to continue to mean what the founders wished it to mean.

BTW, note that the "favor" Trump wanted "though" in exchange for that $400M was not to have Ukraine quietly investigate Hunter Biden's involvement with that Ukrainian company. If Trump actually cared about possible shenanigans within the Ukrainaian government, doing so quietly would have been the best strategy so as not to alert wrongdoers. Instead, Trump simply asked that Ukraine "announce" it was going to conduct an investigation. So talk about bullcrap, that's exactly what Trump's stated rationale was. Of course, we pretty much know that anyway because "everyone was in the loop" including Guiliani and probably also Barr, Pompeo and God knows who else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, alum93 said:

No, that isn't what this is about.  Even if you are 100% behind Trump staying, you can still be educated on what the inquiry is about and what evidence has been presented.

I get that is not what the articles of impeachment will be about.  But the motivation is not out of some desire to preserve our democracy.  They were looking for anything and everything and this is the best they could come up with because they just can't stand having him in office.

 

Edit:  Do you need any more proof than that your hero, Nancy Pelosi, said she was ready to impeach before they ever saw the transcript?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

I get that is not what the articles of impeachment will be about.  But the motivation is not out of some desire to preserve our democracy.  They were looking for anything and everything and this is the best they could come up with because they just can't stand having him in office.

Good, you understand it's not about him saying mean things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

Thanks.

I have no problem with calling on experts at the trial stage (which, I understand would occur before the Senate).  

But this dog and pony show of having so called "experts" appear (hand picked law professors), give their two cents during the inquiry is simply a stunt to influence the public and media, and offers nothing to the process of gathering evidence to DECIDE if there is a basis to impeach.   Clearly BS.

I understand that both sides engage in these stupid stunts, but that doesn't excuse it.

 

Those law professors (so called experts) was a complete waste of time, and didn't help the Democrats' credibility IMO

The whole thing is a shitshow from both sides of the aisle and further evidence that what this country needs isn't a good 5 cent cigar but a third major party.

But it's also apparent that the Constitution should be amended to create a whole new impeachment process. To use another cliche, our judicial system may be imperfect but it's the best such system in the world and much better than the compromise impeachment process which allowed for ratification of the Constitution. Just create a bipartisan grand jury type totally private process resulting in indictment or no indictment and in the case of indictment, have a true trial system in which those asking questions aren't allowed to express their own opinions until all the evidence is in. If presided over by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS acting as a trial judge, the whole thing could be over in less than a month.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×