Deranged Rhino Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 First, I'm not a republican and spoke at length against the political theater inherent in the Benghazi hearings. Second, it wasn't a fake investigation, despite the partisan slants of some of the committee members. Four people died, including an ambassador and the administration lied about the cause of those murders. That happened. It's proven. And an investigation into it was legit. But it was never an impeachment push. Which is why comparing it to what's happening now is not only silly, it's dishonest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 25, 2019 Author Share Posted October 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, B-Man said: Tibsy wrong, as usual Senate to Vote on Resolution That Calls House Impeachment Proceedings ‘Illegitimate.’ . They are not talking about the evidence, they are protesting too much about the processes to change the subject. Just now, Deranged Rhino said: First, I'm not a republican and spoke at length against the political theater inherent in the Benghazi hearings. Second, it wasn't a fake investigation, despite the partisan slants of some of the committee members. Four people died, including an ambassador and the administration lied about the cause of those murders. That happened. It's proven. And an investigation into it was legit. But it was never an impeachment push. Which is why comparing it to what's happening now is not only silly, it's dishonest. The stand down order? That was a lie, Conservatives made a movie about that lie 24 minutes ago, Doc said: They already said that they won’t convict if the house somehow manages to get enough votes to impeach him. Not much more to say. Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: First, I'm not a republican That still makes me laugh out loud. I can still remember not even 5 years ago when you were almost as rabid a Democrat as anyone on this board. Your turn from the Democratic Party still amazes me sometimes. I mean, agree or disagree with you, the one thing no one should accuse you of here is being any sort of party apparatchik. You think for yourself. You may not do it well, but you definitely think for yourself. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: The silence of Senate Republicans is deafening "Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake. ... 'Then, gentlemen,' said Napoleon, 'let us wait a little; when your enemy is executing a false movement, never interrupt him.' " Edited October 25, 2019 by Koko78 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 49 minutes ago, Tiberius said: They are not talking about the evidence, they are protesting too much about the processes to change the subject. The stand down order? That was a lie, Conservatives made a movie about that lie Link? What makes this just wrong is that no one is supposed to be commenting on the testimony but the dems are leaking out info that only supports their narrative. They could be taking things out of context or flat out lying about it. The republicans want a public hearing with everything released. What could be wrong with that, other than the dems being made fools of again by the witnesses they call, ala Judicial Committee hearing with Corey Lewandowski? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: They are not talking about the evidence, they are protesting too much about the processes to change the subject. There's no evidence, and no process. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 7 minutes ago, DC Tom said: There's no evidence, and no process. What are you a Constitutional scholar now? But let's all take Tom's word for it. He's an idiot I know from the internet. ? But... I guess if we have to trust somebody. Why not the one's with some kind of credentials. It's a start: "Senator Graham's resolution has absolutely no substance," ~Laurence Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and professor of constitutional law at Harvard.? "I looked at it carefully to see if any of its process complaints made sense historically, legally, or morally. I could find nothing in it worthy of being taken seriously. "And the fact that it focuses entirely on phony objections to a completely fair and traditional process speaks volumes about how little the Republican senators have to say in defense of what the president has done in shaking down a vulnerable ally for his own personal benefit." ~Laurence Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and professor of constitutional law at Harvard. "And everyone knows that the information being gathered will be public in a matter of weeks anyway, when POTUS and his people will have ample opportunity to rebut." ~Frank Bowman, Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor of Law at the University of Missouri 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 2 hours ago, DC Tom said: If they're smart, they'll try to assassinate Warren or Biden next. I mean...their first inclination has to be to assassinate Trump, or Pence, or Barr. But that would be a "Reichstag fire" moment, and counter-productive. Killing off a Democratic front-runner will distract from the Barr/Durham investigation, and they can find a way to blame Trump for it, and it would probably cement the election for whichever Democrat wins the primaries, particularly if they can blame a white supremacist. Probably Warren, so they get the misogyny angle too. Then Hillary steps in "because as a government official of almost thirty years, despite my reluctance I feel it is my solemn duty to once again serve mysel- er, my country in this time of grave crisis." Kinda ghoulish... But I think if they want to make a "reverse Reichstag" moment, then they would go after one of the top House protagonists. I get the Hillary angle, but if the goal is to make it look like a desperate Trump move (because they're getting too close to the truth) then the angle is to go after the people investigating him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 4 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 (edited) 43 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: What are you a Constitutional scholar now? But let's all take Tom's word for it. He's an idiot I know from the internet. ? But... I guess if we have to trust somebody. Why not the one's with some kind of credentials. It's a start: "Senator Graham's resolution has absolutely no substance," ~Laurence Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and professor of constitutional law at Harvard.? "I looked at it carefully to see if any of its process complaints made sense historically, legally, or morally. I could find nothing in it worthy of being taken seriously. "And the fact that it focuses entirely on phony objections to a completely fair and traditional process speaks volumes about how little the Republican senators have to say in defense of what the president has done in shaking down a vulnerable ally for his own personal benefit." ~Laurence Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and professor of constitutional law at Harvard. "And everyone knows that the information being gathered will be public in a matter of weeks anyway, when POTUS and his people will have ample opportunity to rebut." ~Frank Bowman, Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor of Law at the University of Missouri Tribe's conclusions notwithstanding, do you note his language? It is very conclusory and I'd say it doesn't come across as a neutral assessment of Graham's resolution. "Phony objections" "Completely fair and traditional process" "Shaking down a vulnerable ally" "His own personal benefit" I wouldn't call the Senate or the House Republicans' objections "phony". In fact, it doesn't appear that the House majority is handling the investigation in an open way. The "Traditional" process is to be quite a bit more open with both parties and representatives of the White House. That doesn't seem to be happening here. And his last lines about a shakedown and Trump's own personal benefit sound a lot like he's got Trump convicted in his own mind already. I thought there is an "investigation" going on, yes? Is the "investigation" a sham? If Trump is so obviously guilty, then why investigate at all? If the purpose of the "investigation" is to get bi-partisan and public support, then why be so secretive? I'm sure half the House and 2/3 of the Senate see Trump's guilt, right??? Edit: Bowman's language is much more neutral. And I'd add that I want a title like Bowman's. I'm endowed and I profess things about the Law. Edited October 25, 2019 by snafu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: what happened? Obama took a swipe at Trump? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Foxx said: what happened? Obama took a swipe at Trump? I turned it off -- but yes. He did, HRC did, and Pelosi did. I'll find the clips soon enough I imagine. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 17 minutes ago, Foxx said: what happened? Obama took a swipe at Trump? 15 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I turned it off -- but yes. He did, HRC did, and Pelosi did. I'll find the clips soon enough I imagine. Anyone remember the Wellstone memorial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I turned it off -- but yes. He did, HRC did, and Pelosi did. I'll find the clips soon enough I imagine. so... it was another Facebook Hearing on Libra. figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 Up to 50 now. 0 shot of getting the needed votes in the Senate, even with several turncoats like Mittens. ... But let's waste more time interfering with an upcoming election, right? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 Never getting 2/3 of the Senate without an actual reason to proceed in the first place 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 2 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said: What are you a Constitutional scholar now? But let's all take Tom's word for it. He's an idiot I know from the internet. ? But... I guess if we have to trust somebody. Why not the one's with some kind of credentials. It's a start: "Senator Graham's resolution has absolutely no substance," ~Laurence Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and professor of constitutional law at Harvard.? "I looked at it carefully to see if any of its process complaints made sense historically, legally, or morally. I could find nothing in it worthy of being taken seriously. "And the fact that it focuses entirely on phony objections to a completely fair and traditional process speaks volumes about how little the Republican senators have to say in defense of what the president has done in shaking down a vulnerable ally for his own personal benefit." ~Laurence Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and professor of constitutional law at Harvard. "And everyone knows that the information being gathered will be public in a matter of weeks anyway, when POTUS and his people will have ample opportunity to rebut." ~Frank Bowman, Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor of Law at the University of Missouri You could do the same research I did. Read the House rules of parliamentary procedure, tell me what the impeachment procedures are, and how they're being followed. 1 hour ago, snafu said: Kinda ghoulish... But I think if they want to make a "reverse Reichstag" moment, then they would go after one of the top House protagonists. I get the Hillary angle, but if the goal is to make it look like a desperate Trump move (because they're getting too close to the truth) then the angle is to go after the people investigating him. They don't think that way. Congress is just an advocacy group to them, with no real power. They're not capable of understanding that anyone could perceive a House Democrat would be a threat to Trump...only another executive candidate could threaten him. That's why they're pursuing a coup, and not exercising true checks and balances. Only another executive can challenge his power. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 Tapper doing his best to be a disinformation agent for the establishment. https://mobile.twitter.com/amber_athey/status/1187830461634093056 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 https://twitter.com/Perryalt1/status/1187821582560837632 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts