Politics IMPEACHMENT 2020: THE BIG SNOOZE

[Chris Craig]

Like I mentioned before, if the republicans are going to help protect the president at all costs then at least the impeachment trial brings a lot of information to light so that the public can decide at the polls. Without this coming to our attention, then there may be a lot of people that vote for trump without really knowing what he has actually been doing. Should the democrats just throw their hands up and say "let's do nothing" and allow this scumbag to continue down the same path? To me, they are playing hardball right back at trump and playing his game. That's how you beast him as he needs to be exposed.

If it were the other way around the republicans would be doing the same thing.

 

[Hoopguru]

The problem with that HG is that all the republicans (via trump) wanted was the two Bidens and the whistle blower. The Biden's knew nothing about what trump was trying to accomplish through Ukraine and the whistle blower only alerted the appropriate people from information he was told through the whistle blower program and from there the IG and others opened the investigation. Neither one would be able to bring forth any decent evidence for the impeachment. Unlike people like Bolton, Mulvaney, etc. that trump blocked from testifying. What information could the Biden's provide or the whistle blower provide? The only thing it would accomplish is exposing a person that is protected by the whistle blower act and defame the Bidens which would effect his run for the democratic nomination.

Maybe so. But it didn't have to be Biden necessarily but the whistleblower certainly should be fair, maybe in private or so. I mean the accuser should be able to be asked questions form the defense.
I think the courts could have granted subpoenas.
To me its seems like mixing oil and water with the two party hate.

 

[CupWizier]

Maybe so. But it didn't have to be Biden necessarily but the whistleblower certainly should be fair, maybe in private or so. I mean the accuser should be able to be asked questions form the defense.
I think the courts could have granted subpoenas.
To me its seems like mixing oil and water with the two party hate.

what sort of questions do you need to ask the whistle blower that haven't already been answered by more connected sources? It would be like me alerting the fire department that someone told me that Bob Slob started a fire that burned a business down. I don't have any first hand info, didn't witness the crime but only passed along some hearsay evidence but want to remain anonymous for fear or repercussions and possible death threats. If the fire department then investigates and finds witnesses that actually have pertinent info and it was corroborated what more could I offer up in a trial as a witness? trump just wants him exposed so he can attack him endlessly like he proves to do on a daily basis with others. There is a Whistle Blower law for a reason and it doesn't favor republicans, democrats or independents.

 

[crandc]

Fox suggested not to watch hearings, just their commentary.

Reported Rand Paul is sketching, and Marsha Blackburn reading a book. Glad to see they take the Constitution so seriously.

At a rally Trump said Article 2 of the Constitution, which I am sure he hasn't read, gives the president "powers that you would not believe". The Constitution is not a secret manuscript only available to 35th degree Real Americans. We study it in school. It's in bookstores and libraries, on line, organizations give copies away. Anyone with basic English literacy can read what powers it grants a president. Trump lacks basic English literacy.

 

[e_blazer]

I'm sure you are right about that. If someone has accepted that corruption is unimportant and possibly even desirable, why would they be invested in a corruption trial?

barfo

Nice.

All I’m just thinking that if you are going after corruption it’s best to get your ducks in a row while you can. Don’t wait until those you believe are corrupt are in control.

 

[Hoopguru]

what sort of questions do you need to ask the whistle blower that haven't already been answered by more connected sources? It would be like me alerting the fire department that someone told me that Bob Slob started a fire that burned a business down. I don't have any first hand info, didn't witness the crime but only passed along some hearsay evidence but want to remain anonymous for fear or repercussions and possible death threats. If the fire department then investigates and finds witnesses that actually have pertinent info and it was corroborated what more could I offer up in a trial as a witness? trump just wants him exposed so he can attack him endlessly like he proves to do on a daily basis with others. There is a Whistle Blower law for a reason and it doesn't favor republicans, democrats or independents.

If attorneys on either side want witness's i'm good with it, as long as it is pertinent to a case.
Both of these sides seem's to feel, and say they have overwhelming evidence as is.

 

[CupWizier]

If attorneys on either side want witness's i'm good with it, as long as it is pertinent to a case.
Both of these sides seem's to feel, and say they have overwhelming evidence as is.

but you never said if the whistle blower's testimony would be relevant and why if you think it is? There is a lot of evidence being withheld by the defense. They stonewalled the House and now stonewalling the Senate. Doesn't that sound like obstruction to you? I sure hope if I ever go to trial I can block witnesses and documents from being released to the other side and to the jury

 

[The Professional Fan]

“The American people” is a large group with thousands of varying opinions. There is no consensus from “The American people” as a whole. That’s a meaningless phrase.

Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Every politician, left, center or right, that uses the phrase "the american people want....." drives me absolutely fucking insane.

 

[CupWizier]

Nice.

All I’m just thinking that if you are going after corruption it’s best to get your ducks in a row while you can. Don’t wait until those you believe are corrupt are in control.

The dems hands were tied. Either extend this to probably beyond the election or go with what you have were the only choices given. It should be in an impeachment case or a high profile case where time is of the essence then the judicial system should have something in place to where it can be fast tracked to the Supreme Court. As it is, the only recourse is to have the Attorney General back the prosecution and force witnesses to testify or find them in contempt of court, but as we have come to find out, Barr is no Attorney General for the people as he is simply an another attorney for trump. This isn;t what our forefathers envisioned.

 

[Hoopguru]

but you never said if the whistle blower's testimony would be relevant and why if you think it is? There is a lot of evidence being withheld by the defense. They stonewalled the House and now stonewalling the Senate. Doesn't that sound like obstruction to you? I sure hope if I ever go to trial I can block witnesses and documents from being released to the other side and to the jury

I would have to leave that up to attorneys. If trump was able to do what he wants it would be over in time.
Absolutely its obstruction if he's breaking the law.
Again, they should have taken him/them to court for subpoena as he would be obligated too. I think this is fairly common in trials.
I haven't listen to this at all other than pits and pieces while trying to find a different channel.

 

[Chris Craig]

"Democracy is the theory that two thieves will steal less the one."

"The principle virtue of Democracy is that it makes a good show...one incomparably bizzare, amazing, shocking, and obscene."

"The Fathers who invented it, if they could return from hell, would never recognize it. It was concieved as a free government of free men; it has become simply a battle of charlatans for the votes of idiots."

 

[CupWizier]

I would have to leave that up to attorneys. If trump was able to do what he wants it would be over in time.
Absolutely its obstruction if he's breaking the law.
Again, they should have taken him/them to court for subpoena as he would be obligated too. I think this is fairly common in trials.
I haven't listen to this at all other than pits and pieces while trying to find a different channel.

In order to have an effective subpeona, you have to have an attorney general that would enforce it. Instead we have on that clearly is on team trump and refused to enforce the subpeonas that had been requested. If the AG won't enforce it then you have to file a lawsuit and then let it bake in the judicial system for however long. Do you think that's fair? I see it as more obstruction.

 

[Hoopguru]

In order to have an effective subpeona, you have to have an attorney general that would enforce it. Instead we have on that clearly is on team trump and refused to enforce the subpeonas that had been requested. If the AG won't enforce it then you have to file a lawsuit and then let it bake in the judicial system for however long. Do you think that's fair? I see it as more obstruction.

Yeah that’s boloney for sure. But it’s the politics that create these tactics.
AG seem loyal to whomever appoints them.
I remember the republicans raising hell over fast and furious and took the AG to court.
More politics!

 

[barfo]

There is no getting around the legal time required to decide this issue if it is formally asserted.

After pondering some more, I'm not sure you are correct about that aspect.

If, somehow, the Republican Senate votes to have a witness, there will be much more pressure on the White House to allow that than there was in the House. Political pressure, I mean, not legal pressure. It will be harder to have the person just not show up at all. The R senators who put their necks on the chopping block to vote to hear the witness will not appreciate that. And, of course, it would only add weight to the 2nd article of impeachment, it might make it a lot more 'real' to the senators if they were the ones being obstructed rather than the House.

So maybe the witness does show up, but El Prez actually invokes executive privilege. Does that now begin a court battle? Maybe, maybe not. After all, executive privilege is not a blanket that allows a witness to ignore all questions. And it doesn't apply if you are covering up wrongdoing. It's also possible that CJ Roberts could issue an immediate ruling on the validity of the privilege claim. It seems plausible that would be within his powers. It's also possible that the prosecution would tailor their questions to avoid legitimate claims of EP.

Of course, all that presupposes that the Senate would vote to hear one or more witnesses, which I do not expect them to do.

The argument for documents is similar - there will be more political pressure to provide them if the Senate asks than there was when the House asked. And it's possible that Roberts can sign a document subpoena without it being reviewed by the courts (assuming the Senate permits it).

barfo

 

[barfo]

And since I mentioned the McGahn case earlier, I just saw that the House filed a brief with the court that is hearing the McGahn appeal, pointing out that the DOJ has argued in that case that the House has no right to ask the court to enforce any subpoena against the executive branch, whereas in the impeachment trial Trump's lawyers have argued that the House should have asked the courts to enforce their subpoenas against the executive branch instead of moving ahead with impeachment.

Nice when you can have it both ways, I guess.

barfo

 

[Stevenson]

As part of the Nixon Impeachment, the official record included a study the House undertook. You do not need a crime for an act to be impeachable. Their example was a president who simply stopped performing his duties. That is clearly impeachable, even though no crime would have been committed.

The study concluded that the crux of impeachment was the phrase in Article II that defines the president's duty as being to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'

I don't see how anyone watching this can conclude anything other than Trump's whole purpose was to make sure our laws (aid to Ukraine) would NOT be faithfully executed.

Case. Closed.

 

[Lanny]

70% of who? Democrats out to get Trump?

What witnesses and documents, only those they deem relevant themselves?

There is no "truth" here. Both sides have an agenda and they are both assholes for their own personal glory. They give zero fucks about the country, they just want themselves to look good and grandstand. Fuck them all.

No, ones that we all know are relevant. Bolton, Mulvaney, phone call records, etc.

 

[Lanny]

I make drive-by comments. That's about it. If people had other interesting shit to talk about, I'd probably participate in those discussions as well.

Every once in a while I'll chip in some comments.

Many people are fucking obsessed with politics and news. For the most part, ignore it all, you'll be happier with your life.

Ignore politics and the country will be the worse for it. People ignored Hitler thinking he'd just go away.

 

[Lanny]

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side

It's s time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

I remember that song. Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[CupWizier]

That is as sad as it is funny because it's likely true.

 

[e_blazer]

Well that’s clearly BS.

If he shot a Democrat the vote would be 53-46.

 

[barfo]

Well that’s clearly BS.

If he shot a Democrat the vote would be 53-46.

There's a reason he calls himself mith, not math.

barfo

 

[CupWizier]

Yeah that’s boloney for sure. But it’s the politics that create these tactics.
AG seem loyal to whomever appoints them.
I remember the republicans raising hell over fast and furious and took the AG to court.
More politics!

As long as excuses are continually made and accepted that it's "just the norm, they all do it" then nothing ever gets accomplished. trump takes the corruption to an all time low and will continue to go lower as long as the republicans refuse to stop him.

 

[CupWizier]

There's a reason he calls himself mith, not math.

barfo

well technically trump can shoot the judge and the vote would still be 53-47.

 

[barfo]

well technically trump can shoot the judge and the vote would still be 53-47.

Does a vote count if there is no one to announce the results?

barfo

 

[ABM]

There's a reason he calls himself mith, not math.

barfo

Last evening, I watched this movie (21) for the first time. I found this to be pretty interesting....although, I didn't quite understand how Ben derived the solution.

 

[stampedehero]

I’m a little surprised that there isn’t a running thread on here about every development in the Senate impeachment trial. Then again, I guess it’s like trying to get excited about a mystery novel when you already know who done it.

I’m glancing at headlines and watching a couple of YouTube clips a day. Maybe fifteen minutes total. How about you?

For me, I watch it when I have lunch and the feeling of boredom became the daily routine.

 

[stampedehero]

Last evening, I watched this movie (21) for the first time. I found this to be pretty interesting....although, I didn't quite understand how Ben derived the solution.

So, Spacey has found value in his life after pedophile engagement. Ben derived a solution without guess or a deep hunch. He used changing mathematical variation to initiate real time decisions based on logical percentage at that time.After choosing door 3...…………..

 

[ABM]

So, Spacey has found value in his life after pedophile engagement. Ben derived a solution without guess or a deep hunch. He used changing mathematical variation to initiate real time decisions based on logical percentage at that time.View attachment 29573After choosing door 3...…………..

Yeah, the way Spacey was looking at some of those boys in the movie made me wonder what that real life movie situation was like. May have been making Kate Bosworth a bit jealous. Eww.