Impeachment hearings

[_Icarus]

An interesting plot twist.

Pelosi may hold on to the articles until the GOP Senate guarantees a fair trial.

[_MeDotOrg]

An interesting plot twist.

Pelosi may hold on to the articles until the GOP Senate guarantees a fair trial.

Yeah, I found that interesting. Ostensibly, she's waiting for McConnell to announce the rules so she can decide who should manage the impeachment in the Senate. I think she's waiting for Mitch to put his cards on the table. Then she'll have a better idea about how to construct her case.

[_MeDotOrg]

MeDot what I mean is a situation where the groups become larger due to the organizers, swelling, and basically tensions rising and boiling over.

I really don't think there will be much violence. Again, in really large demonstrations there are often a few radicals that want to highjack the protest and smash windows, but the people who are non-violent remain non-violent.

During the Vietnam war, I marched with hundreds of thousands of people at the Moratorium Rally in San Francisco. It was very peaceful.


I'm the good-looking guy in the middle of the crowd ;-)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

A comment from the trib directed at Stewart:

For me, impeachment of Mr. Trump is about the undisputed fact that he asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival for his personal political gain. It is also about Mr. Trump's refusal to provide any of the many documents subpoenaed by Congress or to allow officials with knowledge of the request to testify in Congress's investigation of his wrongful request. My concern is for the rule of law, free and fair elections, and the importance of check and balances.

You are mistaken about my interests and you do not represent them.

You are correct about one thing, I do think you are stupid. And, every time you have opened your mouth in the hearings, you confirm it. But that really is beside the point. Rather the point is that you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Do your job of keeping the executive branch in check.

The evidence supporting the counts of impeachment are undisputed and a matter of record. The memorandum of Mr. Trump's call with Mr. Zelensky, released by the White House, shows that Mr. Trump asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. This is undisputed and directly supported by a document released by Mr. Trump.

Furthermore, the record is clear that Mr. Trump has not complied with any Congressional subpoena issued to investigate the matter. This is obstruction of Congress and the underlying facts are undisputed.

Do you duty to your oath of office and vote to impeach.

- Doc

[_Gunnar]

T think there is still a pretty good chance that Trump will yet do or say something so outrageous and self wounding that enough of Republican Senators will feel they have no choice but vote against him to make a majority against him, though I am less certain that the number will rise to a 2/3 majority of all Senators. He is such a bumbling, clueless buffoon that he is almost guaranteed to shoot himself in the foot again, as he so often has.

The only time he isn't shooting himself in the foot, is when he is stopping to reload his gun.

Michael J. Rogers (born June 2, 1963) is a former U.S. Representative for Michigan's 8th congressional district. A member of the Republican Party, Rogers served from 2001 to 2015. From 2011 to 2015, he was Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

His outrage at being impeached, plus his apparently inability refrain from lashing out irrationally, whenever he feels or imagines he has been slighted even the least bit, will likely amplify that tendency. The guy has little or no self control.

Besides that, I'm fairly certain that what support he has from fellow Republicans (especially in the Senate) is due more to what they perceive as political expediency than to any actual liking or respect for Trump. Those who really know him well must realize what a clueless buffoon he is.

[_subgenius]

Graham said to “Face the Nation”: “You want to talk about Ukraine, it’s pretty hard for me to go home and tell my constituents to ignore the fact that Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from a gas company in the Ukraine, run by the most corrupt person in the Ukraine, and two months after the gas company was investigated, the prosecutor got fired.”
....
Biden- “I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in; I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a [expletive]. He got fired,”

See? RI is a prophet. Sub, why didn't the DoJ probe the Bidens in 2016, 2017, 2018, and now 2019?

- Doc

The better question is whether you believe that Biden should be investigated by anyone at anytime over the matter...or does being on the campaign trail grant him immunity?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

k

[_Icarus]

The better question is whether you believe that Biden should be investigated by anyone at anytime over the matter...or does being on the campaign trail grant him immunity?

That isn't the "better question." It is just a derailment that you need to avoid answering Doc's question.

If there was a basis for investigating Hunter Biden then surely Trump's justice Department would have done so during his first three years in office. The only reason they're making a stink of it now is because they desperately need a diversion for the smaller minds that follow their propaganda trail.

It amazes me how the same people who spend months and years with baseless investigations into Hillary's emails, Benghazi, the Mueller investigation, etc., are the same people who find absolutely no basis to investigate Trump's out in the open impeachable offenses and obvious federal crimes that even his favorite TV Network has repeatedly affirmed.

[Guest]

The better question is whether you believe that Biden should be investigated by anyone at anytime over the matter...or does being on the campaign trail grant him immunity?

That isn't the "better question." It is just a derailment that you need to avoid answering Doc's question.

If there was a basis for investigating Hunter Biden then surely Trump's justice Department would have done so during his first three years in office. The only reason they're making a stink of it now is because they desperately need a diversion for the smaller minds that follow their propaganda trail.

It amazes me how the same people who spend months and years with baseless investigations into Hillary's emails, Benghazi, the Mueller investigation, etc., are the same people who find absolutely no basis to investigate Trump's out in the open impeachable offenses and obvious federal crimes that even his favorite TV Network has repeatedly affirmed.

And at the same time they stubbornly ignore the abundantly confirmed by multiple, credible, international and even bipartisan and nonpartisan sources that what the what the Bidens did in Ukraine served to fight corruption--not cover it up. In fact, the corruption they were fighting would have served Trump and his cronies' selfish interests, if not stopped, which was probably an additional reason Trump wanted to hurt the Bidens.

Remember, according to some of Trump's apologists (Sean Spicer, for example), corruption is not really illegal or immoral, as long as it is done in the open, with no attempt to conceal it. I think Trump really believes that. That is why he is so brazenly and shamelessly corrupt. He just can't understand how there could possibly be anything wrong with anything that personally benefits him--no matter what it is.

[_Some Schmo]

An interesting plot twist.

Pelosi may hold on to the articles until the GOP Senate guarantees a fair trial.

Yeah, I found that interesting. Ostensibly, she's waiting for McConnell to announce the rules so she can decide who should manage the impeachment in the Senate. I think she's waiting for Mitch to put his cards on the table. Then she'll have a better idea about how to construct her case.

I think she should hold them indefinitely. That way Trump is impeached and never acquitted, and he can't repeat that the senate let him off the hook ad nauseam, like you know he'll do in that situation.