|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 29, 2020 19:12:37 GMT -5
After Pelosi and crew completely circumvented the required process step of having the entire House vote to authorize the Committee investigations? You mean that complete unfair abortion of process? Peter, I would like to know where you came up with this "required process." I cannot find any such requirement. If there is no such requirement, does that change your view on the legitimacy of the current impeachment process? That 2 hour Saturday session. Like I said, a brilliant piece of lawyerly smackdown prime time stuff. And no, this is all still horseshit.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 29, 2020 19:23:42 GMT -5
Didn't the full house vote on the resolution before sending it to the Senate? Or are you saying they put the cart before the horse ? They're supposed to vote to authorize the committees to investigate in the first place. Which the lying sacks of shit apparently forgot. Which delegitimizes all requests to the WH for witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 19:38:41 GMT -5
Two GOP Senators lift the curtain on the snipe hunt of an idea that Trump has ever actually given so much as a fart about corruption unless the whiff of it was good for Trump: Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) pitched President Donald Trump’s lawyers a curve ball Wednesday, asking a question that underscored the political motive behind Trump’s sudden interest in Ukrainian corruption. The senators asked if Trump ever mentioned the Bidens in connection to corruption in Ukraine BEFORE the former Vice President announced his candidacy for president in April 2019. Deputy Counsel to the President Patrick Philbin struggled to defuse the loaded question, spending some time explaining that his knowledge of what the President said comes only from the House’s limited inquiry and that some points were not “thoroughly pursued” in the record (he did not elaborate that the record was so curtailed because of the White House’s blocking of key administration figures from testifying). talkingpointsmemo.com/news/murkowski-collins-biden-ukraine
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 19:43:01 GMT -5
If International Corruption Fighter, Donald Trump, had genuine concerns about corruption in the Ukraine that might have involved the Bidens he had the Justice Department available to discuss or investigate his worries. His quid pro quo withholding of authorized aid was not the way to go about any sort of legit investigation. A shame we can’t hear from witnesses who might shed some light on why he decided to strong arm our ally rather than doing it as a legit non criminal might. How's that emoluments thing going? Funny- and telling- that you think emoluments are a joke. Just another pussy for Trump to grab. When you're a star, they let you get away with anything. But, to your question: pretty well for Dear Leader. He and his swamp-mates are cashing in on his office in a way that might make Boss Tweed weep with envy.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 19:52:44 GMT -5
Didn't the full house vote on the resolution before sending it to the Senate? Or are you saying they put the cart before the horse ? They're supposed to vote to authorize the committees to investigate in the first place. Which the lying sacks of shit apparently forgot. Which delegitimizes all requests to the WH for witnesses. When the facts of the case are against you. argue that you are winning on process.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 29, 2020 19:58:00 GMT -5
They're supposed to vote to authorize the committees to investigate in the first place. Which the lying sacks of shit apparently forgot. Which delegitimizes all requests to the WH for witnesses. When the facts of the case are against you. argue that you are winning on process. You'd know about that better than anybody. I'll take your word for it.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 20:10:14 GMT -5
When the facts of the case are against you. argue that you are winning on process. You'd know about that better than anybody. I'll take your word for it. Feel free to do so. But if you told me you were taking Trump's word for anything, I'd be concerned.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 29, 2020 20:30:59 GMT -5
You'd know about that better than anybody. I'll take your word for it. Feel free to do so. But if you told me you were taking Trump's word for anything, I'd be concerned. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 29, 2020 20:46:17 GMT -5
Feel free to do so. But if you told me you were taking Trump's word for anything, I'd be concerned. Be afraid. Be very afraid. I will leave being afraid to the Flaccid 53, the GOP Senators who live in fear of Dear Leader.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Jan 29, 2020 21:31:58 GMT -5
News Flash ! Mitch McConnell Agrees To Let Michael Bolton Testify During Senate Trial
This... is something that the heartthrob singer actually has experience with:
|
|
|
Post by david on Jan 29, 2020 21:59:16 GMT -5
Didn't the full house vote on the resolution before sending it to the Senate? Or are you saying they put the cart before the horse ? They're supposed to vote to authorize the committees to investigate in the first place. Which the lying sacks of shit apparently forgot. Which delegitimizes all requests to the WH for witnesses. Peter, this is where you have lost me. When you say "They are supposed to vote to authorize committees to investigate in the first place" I think that could be a spin on the law, that is, I cannot find any source to suggest that is a requirement of impeachment. I suspect it is something someone made up to support a position. I am not suggesting that you spun it. But if somebody spun it, and you are relying on it, then you are relying on crap that people are feeding the listener. I am not trying to corner you, and Lord knows that I too have relied on crap, but I just wanted to find out if there is such a requirement. Here is what I am finding (admittedly from "Wikipedia"): The House Rules, adopted in 2010, (and apparently it was also adopted in earlier House rules as well) included "Jefferson's Manual," and that manual provides that "impeachment is set in motion by charges made on the floor, charges proffered by a memorial, a member's resolution referred to a committee, a message from the president, or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House." I have not read Jefferson's Manual, nor do I pretend to know the existing House rules that might pertain. I guess what I am trying to say is that you are likely relying on someone's interpretations of the law, just like those you are accusing of relying on someone's interpretation of the law, without either of you really knowing the law. If you are aware of the actual law, please enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 30, 2020 6:12:53 GMT -5
They're supposed to vote to authorize the committees to investigate in the first place. Which the lying sacks of shit apparently forgot. Which delegitimizes all requests to the WH for witnesses. Peter, this is where you have lost me. When you say "They are supposed to vote to authorize committees to investigate in the first place" I think that could be a spin on the law, that is, I cannot find any source to suggest that is a requirement of impeachment. I suspect it is something someone made up to support a position. I am not suggesting that you spun it. But if somebody spun it, and you are relying on it, then you are relying on crap that people are feeding the listener. I am not trying to corner you, and Lord knows that I too have relied on crap, but I just wanted to find out if there is such a requirement. Here is what I am finding (admittedly from "Wikipedia"): The House Rules, adopted in 2010, (and apparently it was also adopted in earlier House rules as well) included "Jefferson's Manual," and that manual provides that "impeachment is set in motion by charges made on the floor, charges proffered by a memorial, a member's resolution referred to a committee, a message from the president, or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House." I have not read Jefferson's Manual, nor do I pretend to know the existing House rules that might pertain. I guess what I am trying to say is that you are likely relying on someone's interpretations of the law, just like those you are accusing of relying on someone's interpretation of the law, without either of you really knowing the law. If you are aware of the actual law, please enlighten me. I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that most, if not all of impeachment relies not on codified law, rather on tradition. There is no law that states that but rather precedent from what's gone before. In Clinton's impeachment I guess the full House voted some 3 separate times for resolutions for House committees to launch their proceedings to move forward. It's simply how it's done. The White House tried to work with the House on witnesses but were rebuffed all the way until Nadler was done and then asked the White House to send witnesses. At that point they decided to keep their powder dry and refused to comply without going to court, as is their right. And then it was done because Democrats were too panicked to follow protocol. Again, not authoritative but what was explained on Saturday morning.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 30, 2020 6:23:17 GMT -5
This is a watershed moment in history and I think everyone senses it.
|
|
|
Post by howard lee on Jan 30, 2020 7:09:43 GMT -5
As this topic is so toxic I have avoided it for the most part. I won't say a whole lot because there are several here that I have a genuine affection for and they are on the other side of the divide. There are a lot of details to the tale: dates, statements, opinions, unpronounceable names, motivations, perceptions of motivations, yadda, yadda, yadda. I have filtered it down to this simplistic statement. If you think DJT committed an impeachable offence then you must believe that Joe Biden did nothing wrong by putting his crack head son on that board. If you believe that JB did nothing wrong then we really don't have anything to discuss and I will let it go as a difference of opinion. Any defense of Trump that presumes nepotism is, in and of itself, a serious offense, suggests the person putting forth that defense has never heard of Don. Jr., Ivanka, Eric, Jared - or irony. Like most of you, I am so fed up with this national situation, for a variety of reasons. This cartoonist makes an interesting point, though. Flame shields up!
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 30, 2020 7:10:25 GMT -5
This may all get over tomorrow but then of course the Democrats will start again Monday. They've been in impeachment mode since 2016 and this is the farthest they've gotten. They won't quit now. So, if you were expecting any help with drug prices or infrastructure or anything else, vote Republican next November because nothing's going to happen until the Democrats are voted out. Bernie will probably be their candidate anyway and you're really not that dumb.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 30, 2020 9:12:32 GMT -5
This is a watershed moment in history and I think everyone senses it. Yeah, it seems impeachment as sport got going with Nixon as retribution for winning a second term in a landslide. Now impeachment is in the first term as retribution for winning the first time, quite probably resulting in a landslide victory for Trump. Hopefully this is the death of the sport.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 30, 2020 11:20:24 GMT -5
I hope the Congress calls Bolton to testify. Which is their right.
I hope Trump blocks Bolton's testimony. Which is his right.
Then I hope it goes the Supreme Court and they decide whose right is right. Which is their right.
And I hope, and expect, being a generally constitutionally conservative court, they will clip the wings of a soaring presidential authority.
Something has to stop this runaway train.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 30, 2020 11:32:28 GMT -5
...they will clip the wings of a soaring presidential authority. Something has to stop this runaway train. If by this you are including the previous administration, then I agree. But to look at the Trump administration and assessing that undoing the overreaching executive mandates of the previous administration and the administrative State is "soaring presidential authority", I would disagree and opine that it is merely using the executive to right the wrongs of the previous executive. And getting us OUT of war is an overreach? ....a runaway train?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 30, 2020 12:09:52 GMT -5
I mean the last five. Or six. Trump didn't start it. I don't know when it started or at which point it left orbit, but it has. And but for Trump and the partisan battlefield, conservatives would be leading the charge to clip the presidential wings.
And I believe if the Bolton block goes to SCOTUS, there will be a shortening of presidential feathers. Presidents will grab all the power they can, and each one grabs a little more than the one before him, and it is their right to do so... until it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 30, 2020 12:12:52 GMT -5
conservatives would be leading the charge to clip the presidential wings. They are. They have remained consistent.
|
|