Bi-Partisan Support For Impeachment

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 I worry about you sometimes.  

 

Don't bother, he's just a clown:

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

13 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 I worry about you sometimes.  

 

You're NOT the only one!  ?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[row_33]

Exiled wants to earn Canadian Tire points so he can join us when Trump goes too far this time...

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[daz28]

Taylor said Morrison recounted a conversation that Gordon Sondland, America’s ambassador to the European Union, had with a top aide to Zelenskiy named Andriy Yermak. Taylor said Morrison told him security assistance would not materialize until Zelenskiy committed to investigate Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company that once employed Biden’s son. A White House meeting for Zelenskiy also was in play.

“I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation,” Taylor testified. “This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance — not just the White House meeting — was conditioned on the investigations.”

Taylor testified that Morrison told him he had a “sinking feeling” after learning about a Sept. 7 conversation Sondland had with Trump.

“According to Mr. Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a quid pro quo,” Taylor testified. “But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskiy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskiy should want to do this himself. Mr. Morrison said that he told Ambassador Bolton and the NSC lawyers of this phone call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland.”

 

 

 

https://fox59.com/2019/10/30/top-trump-adviser-steps-down-ahead-of-impeachment-testimony/

[Warcodered]

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

How dare Schiff question Flynn's credibility as a witness, I mean it's not like the whole shitstorm he got into spawned from some sort of accusation of lying to the FBI...that he'd eventually plead guilty to?

[Bob in Mich]

https://news.yahoo.com/judge-napolitano-impeachment-process-needs-174755468.html

 

Now I know you guys won't reject this info just because of the source, as I just heard that refrain in splendid chorus in another thread.  So, listen and try to let it sink in this time. 

 

Also, it has been proven that cult members don't realize they were in a cult until after they have escaped and were shown the light.  I am praying for you guys.  God Bless

[DC Tom]

9 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

https://news.yahoo.com/judge-napolitano-impeachment-process-needs-174755468.html

 

Now I know you guys won't reject this info just because of the source, as I just heard that refrain in splendid chorus in another thread.  So, listen and try to let it sink in this time. 

 

Also, it has been proven that cult members don't realize they were in a cult until after they have escaped and were shown the light.  I am praying for you guys.  God Bless

 

Stupid.  The ends do not justify the means.  Process matters.  It's the difference between the rule of law and the rule of man.  

 

I don't care what the source is.  If they say process isn't important, they're dead ***** wrong.

[Warcodered]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Stupid.  The ends do not justify the means.  Process matters.  It's the difference between the rule of law and the rule of man.  

 

I don't care what the source is.  If they say process isn't important, they're dead ***** wrong.

good thing he didn't actually say that.

[DC Tom]

9 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

good thing he didn't actually say that.

 

You're right.  He said "Don't judge the impeachment process on process."  That's even dumber. 

[Chef Jim]

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 I worry about you sometimes.  

 

I have more important things to worry about. Like how are the Bills going to do this weekend. And in case you don’t know I couldn’t give two flips on how the Bills will do this weekend. 

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

You're right.  He said "Don't judge the impeachment process on process."  That's even dumber. 

Didn't say that either that's the title they stuck on the video you have to actually watch the video to hear what he says.

 

He more says the better tactic from his legal perspective would be to go after if what he did was an impeachable offense than attack the process which he says is following the rules created by the house when Republicans controlled the House. He basically goes over how the process works some and then gives a basic explanation that in investigations you don't typically broadcast all the info you're gathering while you're gathering it and that it becomes available when your actually having the trial.

[Koko78]

8 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Why should we trust a single word they ever say unless it's backed up by unimpeachable evidence -- which to date, nothing in this Ukraine story has been backed up other than there was no quid pro quo.

 

I'm going to call bullschiff on this. If you look closely at the transcript, completely disregard the 500+ words between "do me a favor" and "Biden", whilst simultaneously ignoring the minor detail that the Ukrainians did not feel pressured to do anything, then the transcript totally shows quid pro quo. Trump is guilty!

 

8 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Again, if they're so confident that what happened was a crime -- why are they doing everything in secret? 

 

 

Oh, right. Because they're not confident. They're trying to run the exact same play they ran with Russia/Trump and hoping the country doesn't notice. 

 

That won't work. It's going to cost them the House. The only ones swayed by any of this are those who already made up their minds due to rampant TDS. 

 

 

Eh, in fairness, this isn't the exact same play. They did learn from the Russia hoax that if they hold public hearings on nonsense that they already know is nonsense, they end up looking like buffoons.

 

Holding secret "depositions" and selectively leaking what they want people to think was the testimony consisted of is a far different strategy.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's still going to blow up spectacularly in their faces, but it is a different strategy. I'm impressed they even managed to work in identity politics with their current star witness. He's totally unimpeachable because he's a goddamn war hero. He's completely different from all the other impeachable war heroes they've smeared the past 3 years, because he's not a Republican!

[Koko78]

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

So we shouldn’t trust Vindman, even though he is backed by other witnesses?

 

Don't forget that he is also backed by news articles citing selectively-leaked information in order to bolster his later testimony, because there was already news articles about the same information that was selectively-leaked beforehand!

 

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Where's the conviction?

 

Not that I want to do anything other than mock gator, but he may, inadvertently, not be wrong. In many jurisdictions, New York included, you are convicted the moment you plead guilty. When you are subsequently sentenced (and the judgment of conviction entered) is not relevant.

 

However, I will note one caveat: I don't really care enough to do the research to see if that is how federal law defines the actual conviction.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

How dare Schiff question Flynn's credibility as a witness, I mean it's not like the whole shitstorm he got into spawned from some sort of accusation of lying to the FBI...that he'd eventually plead guilty to?

 

Not even the FBI thinks Flynn lied. He's not been convicted of a single crime to date. 

 

But that did not stop 3 years of endless smears and attacks by the very same people feigning outrage for talking about a Lt. Col (which is a paper pusher in comparison to Flynn's service). That's the point, War. Schiff is a lying assaht who's trying to save his own ass.

[B-Man]

 

 

CLOWN SHOW UPDATE:  

 

House Dems Find No GOP Defectors for Trump Impeachment Vote.

 

 

 

 

[row_33]

And another month flies by and they have nothing to show for it

 

[4merper4mer]

6 hours ago, row_33 said:

And another month flies by and they have nothing to show for it

 

In reality, despite being completely dishonest and nonsensical, the Schiffs of the world are willing to act.  Even if they are just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks, they are at least moving their arms.  

 

Huber, Horowitz, Durham, et al are still contemplating their navels while thinking about deciding if it might be a good idea to consider removing their thumbs from their butts in about a year or two.

 

They are different sides of the same coin.  One is thrashing about in an effort to grab more power, the other is faking as if they're doing something to protect truth and freedom.  One takes power from the citizenry while the other's inaction implies legitimacy to the power grab.  

Edited October 31, 2019 by 4merper4mer

[4merper4mer]

9 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Not even the FBI thinks Flynn lied. He's not been convicted of a single crime to date. 

 

But that did not stop 3 years of endless smears and attacks by the very same people feigning outrage for talking about a Lt. Col (which is a paper pusher in comparison to Flynn's service). That's the point, War. Schiff is a lying assaht who's trying to save his own ass.

Schiff is not trying to save his own ass.  He is trying to control your ass and everyone else's ass.  And although individual maneuvers fail at times, his overall plan is working.  

 

Meanwhile obvious victims like Flynn receive no relief because lazy doormats like Horowitz and company cannot do anything until.....well.....the 12th.

[row_33]

Good thing for the concept of habeas corpus,  the wisest minds of the past developed it to guard against the Schiff’s of the present day

 

and it may save his behind as well in a few years

 

[Tiberius]

11 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Don't forget that he is also backed by news articles citing selectively-leaked information in order to bolster his later testimony, because there was already news articles about the same information that was selectively-leaked beforehand!

 

 

Not that I want to do anything other than mock gator, but he may, inadvertently, not be wrong. In many jurisdictions, New York included, you are convicted the moment you plead guilty. When you are subsequently sentenced (and the judgment of conviction entered) is not relevant.

 

However, I will note one caveat: I don't really care enough to do the research to see if that is how federal law defines the actual conviction.

Oh no, leaks in Washington! 

 

Face it, Trumps guilty 

Edited October 31, 2019 by Tiberius

[Victory Formation]

Get this guy out of office.

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Sunshower said:

Get this guy out of office.

Pence warming up in the bullpen 

[Foxx]

Debunking some of the Ukraine scandal myths about Biden and election interference

[RochesterRob]

30 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Debunking some of the Ukraine scandal myths about Biden and election interference

  For Tiberius and his cohorts facts are inconvenient things.

[Tiberius]

45 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Debunking some of the Ukraine scandal myths about Biden and election interference

Nothing to support Trumps innocence in trying to get foreign interference in 2020. This is all tossed pots! 

 

 

16 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  For Tiberius and his cohorts facts are inconvenient things.

Fine, this clown  seems to be able to report this none sense, why did Trump have to extort a foreign power over this? If it's all so true, get those right wing hack reporters over there to investigate, don't break the law to create the false narrative 

[SoCal Deek]

41 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Fine, this clown  seems to be able to report this none sense, why did Trump have to extort a foreign power over this? If it's all so true, get those right wing hack reporters over there to investigate, don't break the law to create the false narrative 

You can’t seriously be this disinterested in whether the former VP was using his position to line his family’s pockets....or can you?

[B-Man]

Democrat Alcee Hastings, Who Was Impeached
and Removed, Makes Impeachment Rules

by Joel B. Pollak

Original Article

 

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) is the second-ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee, which is setting the rules for the “impeachment inquiry” into President Donald Trump. Hastings himself was impeached and removed from office in 1989 — one of only eight federal officials, all of whom have been judges, so be so relieved of their duties. [Tweet] Hastings was removed for bribery, one of the causes enumerated in the Constitution’s Impeachment Clause (Article II, Section 4):

 

 

 

 

 

 

A difference of opinion is not a crime, folks.

 

Dem Star Impeachment Witness Vindman
Confirms Trump Did Nothing Wrong

by John Nolte

Original Article

 

The only news that matters coming out of Alexander Vindman’s Tuesday impeachment testimony is that he once again proved President Trump has done absolutely nothing impeachable, or even close to it. Vindman, who is obviously all wound up to overturn the 2016 election and have Trump removed from office, could only testify that the transcript of Trump’s now-famous July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky was missing a couple of details. Boy, that sounds ominous! Did Trump conceal the true nature of his phone call??? Did Zelensky also aid in the cover-up by repeatedly claiming he never felt pressured by Trump???? Bombshell time, amirite? Except, no.

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You can’t seriously be this disinterested in whether the former VP was using his position to line his family’s pockets....or can you?

I'm disinterested in it enough to say it doesn't give Trump the right to break the law or hurt our national

secuity or our election integrity

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I'm disinterested in it enough to say it doesn't give Trump the right to break the law or hurt our national

secuity or our election integrity

How in the world did his inquiry ‘hurt our election integrity’? Gag me! What if the President is actually looking into corruption in the Ukraine....not corruption by Biden?

[Foxx]

the resolution has passed 231 - 196. with 2 dems voting, 'nay'. it is so ordered.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Foxx

[B-Man]

 

The NYT reports.

This is not the vote the Republicans have been demanding — that is not "a formal vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry," which is what happened in the cases of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. So the Democrats are doing some theater of voting out in the open today, but it's not the vote that accords with historical practice. It's not the vote the Republicans have been talking about. It's a vote about what the rules will be.

Of course, the House gets to make its own rules — that's in the Constitution — and the majority will win and get what rules they want and can get away with claiming for themselves. Apparently, the idea is to give the President's supporters nothing until the Intelligence Committee has finished its work. The Democrats apparently want the Intelligence Committee to produce a one-sided report, with any balance on the side of the President to come only after the matter is referred to the Judiciary Committee.

So the Democrats will be out in the open today, explaining to us Americans why that is fair and why that is about getting to the truth? How will that work out? Here's how the NYT puts it:

But Thursday’s vote indicates that Democrats, once wary of holding a vote on the issue, have now united solidly behind the idea. 

Or they've heard enough criticism about their partisan, secretive ways and they're yielding to pressure to legitimatize themselves. The NYT's use of the phrase "a vote on the issue" hides the just-admitted reality that it's not a vote on the issue the Republicans demanded — the issue of whether to authorize the impeachment inquiry. It's a vote on procedural rules for continuing the inquiry. The difference in issues is obvious if you think of the consequences of a "no" vote. What would happen if there's a "no" vote on these rules? Things would continue as they've been going, right?

 

 

[KRC]

7 minutes ago, Foxx said:

the resolution has passed 231 - 196. with 2 dems voting, 'nay'. it is so ordered.

 

According to TOC lahjik, that is bi-partisan support against the impeachment inquiry.

[DC Tom]

Is it the 12th yet?

[Foxx]

here is the problem as i see it.

 

what the Dems are doing in the basement of the Capital is an issue because the Dems are the ones conducting the investigation. Schiffty's gang wants to be perceived as an independent council doing an investigation into possible high crimes and/or misdemeanors. previously, Clinton's impeachment inquiry was done by an outside special council led by Ken Starr. this, at the very least, gave the appearance of impartiality. that inquiry also gave no special accommodations to President Clinton during the discovery  phase. no real prosecution investigation gives consideration to defense concerns at this point. 

 

what this investigation is trying to accomplish, is much the same. an investigation into what the facts of the accusations are. however, there is a real problem with what is going on. Schiffty is leading this, 'special council', which, based upon his previous statements towards Trump alone, should omit him from any role in an investigatory relation to any type impeachment inquiry, not to mention simply being, in this day and climate, on the other side of the aisle.  i believe the reason they have chosen to keep the investigation "in House", is so that they can control the outcome. they didn't get what they wanted from Mueller so they are not going to chance it happening again.

 

add to it all that there never was a floor vote on whether or not the majority of the House wanted to begin an impeachment inquiry, lending questionable validity to the entire process we are seeing, just adds to the dubiousness that the American populace sees. that Nancy has called a vote to establish procedure going forward does nothing to change any of the above. she only hopes that they can claim they held a vote of the House so they are adhering to precedent. 

 

history is not going to be kind to the One Hundred and Sixteenth United States House of Representatives.

[Albwan]

It's pretty clear the democrats are disgusted with the presidential candidates,

so they are running impeachment as the the 2020 democratic nominee.

Total hail mary.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Albwan

[snafu]

Typical Congressional *****-show.

--The Majority drafts the rules and doesn't permit any amendment or change to their draft which has been proposed by the Minority.

--Deliberations begin and the Majority speaks almost exclusively in conclusory terms about anything but procedure, but rather the guilt of the subject of the impeachment.

--The Minority gets up and complains about the proposed rules in almost every instance.  The Majority says "why are you complaining about procedure"?  Huh, WTF?

 

Nobody in the Minority said (that I heard) that since impeachment is so important party divisions should go out the window when setting the rules.  Every Congressmember is equal in this proceeding and each should have the right to all the evidence and should be able to make whatever inquiries they need to make an informed decision.  This is true at the Committee Stage and later, I would suppose, when the entire body deliberates later on. The rules don't seem to favor a level field for all investigators in the process.

 

Nobody in the Minority (that I heard) asked why -- after a month of hearings -- is the Majority now setting rules for the inquiry?  Nobody asked whether the prior activities of the Intelligence Committee are invalidated, or argued that they should be invalidated.  Essentially, the inquiry should start now, since it is only now that rules have been put into place, no matter how objectionable these rules might  be to the Minority.

 

On with the show, I suppose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by snafu

[Deranged Rhino]

51 minutes ago, Foxx said:

the resolution has passed 231 - 196. with 2 dems voting, 'nay'. it is so ordered.

 

So, it wasn’t bipartisan. Not a single R vote. Who woulda thunk it?  

 

(Thread title needs a change)

3 hours ago, Sunshower said:

Get this guy out of office.

 

It’ll happen, one day in 2025. 

 

Unless you mean Mr. Schiff. He’ll be gone much sooner. 

[row_33]

Bring it on....