Jump to content

impeachment hearing play by play


Recommended Posts

In case anyone wants to bring up Democrats gunning for Trump from day one.

 

House Republicans are sincerely shocked that some Democrats were talking about impeaching Trump early in his presidency, because if the roles were reversed they never ever would have ... oh hey what's this. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/republicans-are-already-talking-about-impeaching-clinton 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Republicans have firm grasp of legalese. Their ethics are perfectly suited to taking advantage of the situation. Their grasp of science allows them to deny basic laws of thermodynamics which in turn p

This is my 5,000th post.  That's a lot and, by the deal I made with myself, it will be my last one until tRump is driven away from the White House. I am using it to say, simply, that no matter ho

Posted Images

55 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

So much bullshit, so little integrity.

Seven Outright Falsehoods in GOP Staff Report on Impeachment

Because it is more than a paragraph long, many of the Faithful won't read it.  However, that won' stop them from dismissing it.

The Faithful will also be quick to note that the author is in possession of a vagina, and thus, not credible.

Hell of a writeup IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

So much bullshit, so little integrity.

Seven Outright Falsehoods in GOP Staff Report on Impeachment

Because it is more than a paragraph long, many of the Faithful won't read it.  However, that won' stop them from dismissing it.

She is a terrific commentator...and she identifies the Doggy Style well:

Quote

Not everything in the report is a lie. In many instances, it is clear that, where possible, there was great care taken to avoid outright mistruths, through the careful phrasing of arguments to suggest a more sweeping defense than is actually offered, or through focusing on irrelevant and ambiguous witness testimony while ignoring direct and clear testimony to the contrary.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2019 at 10:19 AM, animeproblem said:

Exactly! also helps that I read the inquiry report (thanks for the link Sol) I didn't even get into the obstruction section because it was 2:00 AM when I finished the 1st part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great time to be retired! Won't last though, I have my COBRA declaration form right here, time to start pissing away my pension so I will not be bankrupted by medical bills.

VA provides quality medical. You served right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fakenews said:

Louis Gohmert just released the name of the whistleblower in the committee hearing

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-louie-gohmert-names-the-alleged-whistleblower-during-house-judiciary-impeachment-debate/

Paywall - who was it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This morning I heard the argument by a R talking head that the Ds credibility is lost in the impeachment because they have been trying to impeach Trump from day one.

I guess that means the Rs lost credibility when their Senate leader said this after Obama was elected:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”  https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311

You reap what you sow. 

The Rs have been waging a no-compromise war going back to Newt Gingrich.  They obviously didn't consider the possibility that some time in the future this may come back and bite them in the ass.

The big question now is will the Rs continue to ignore possible future repercussions and acquit Trump in the Senate and thereby set the precedent every POTUS from that point on can

  • Go to foreign leaders and ask them to open investigations on whoever they want
  • Ignore Congressional powers of subpoena whenever they want

Maybe the Rs no-compromise war has always been to overthrow our democratic republic government.  Acquitting Trump would be a great start.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jules said:

This morning I heard the argument by a R talking head that the Ds credibility is lost in the impeachment because they have been trying to impeach Trump from day one.

I guess that means the Rs lost credibility when their Senate leader said this after Obama was elected:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”  https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311

You reap what you sow. 

The Rs have been waging a no-compromise war going back to Newt Gingrich.  They obviously didn't consider the possibility that some time in the future this may come back and bite them in the ass.

The big question now is will the Rs continue to ignore possible future repercussions and acquit Trump in the Senate and thereby set the precedent every POTUS from that point on can

  • Go to foreign leaders and ask them to open investigations on whoever they want
  • Ignore Congressional powers of subpoena whenever they want

Maybe the Rs no-compromise war has always been to overthrow our democratic republic government.  Acquitting Trump would be a great start.

They are counting on holding onto power for the next 40 years by any means possible, so they aren't worried about a Dem president being as corrupt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

They are counting on holding onto power for the next 40 years by any means possible, so they aren't worried about a Dem president being as corrupt.

In other words, they are attempting to overthrow the U.S. government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

They are counting on holding onto power for the next 40 years by any means possible, so they aren't worried about a Dem president being as corrupt.

The current crop of Dems don't resonate in the Red or Purple states. Maybe that should tell you something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, warbird said:

You have a problem.  Approximatey 97 % of the counties in the US went Red in 2016. Blue has to change it's tune to move that number.

Have you read any polls lately?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
2 hours ago, warbird said:

You have a problem.  Approximatey 97 % of the counties in the US went Red in 2016. Blue has to change it's tune to move that number.

:lol: wardodo says, lying with bad numbers 

Snopes:

Quote

That claim was woefully wrong. Although Donald Trump did win the popular vote in a significantly larger number of counties than Hillary Clinton did, the margin was not so one-sided. Vote tallies by county differ depending on the standards used, but an Associated Press tally of the actual ratio pegged it at 2,626 to 487, not 3084 to 57:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-clinton-counties-won/

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, warbird said:

countymaprb512.png.181d676e86d9c23e66b9b314f755cc7a.png the 97 % I believe referemced a commamding lead, but O will defer to your 80 some %.

Where do 90% of the people in the US live? Map that over your map. Its still shocking that there is such a large percentage of the population who believe lying and cheating is OK and making/watching your political opponents suffer is entertaining. 

Can you imagine any other POTUS accusing someone of treason and pointing out that the penalty is death being laughed at? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

White House pulling out all the stops and running a full on blitzkrieg of bullshit to distract from impeachment.

 https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/474390-trump-considering-skipping-general-election-debates-in-2020

No surprise, really. Imagine the questions that would be put to him in a debate against the Dem nominee. Let alone having to answer so in front of a neutral audience, as opposed to the Trumpettes he's used to in his pep rallies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they have the Fair Trial locked up already. What a surprise.

Quote

Senate leader McConnell: ‘There is no chance the president is going to be removed from office’

Speaking on Fox News, Senate leader Mitch McConnell said he’s “going to coordinate with the president’s lawyers”.

“My hope is that there won’t be a single Republican who votes for either of these articles of impeachment,” he told Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

McConnell will seek not only to dismiss charges against Trump but also acquit him, according to a report from CNN citing two anonymous senators.

Why don't they just make him a saint while they are at it?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/dec/12/donald-trump-news-today-impeachment-house-articles-vote-live-updates

The Guardian has an interesting commentary going during the hearings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Collins just had a meltdown because the democrat presiding called a recess until 10AM tomorrow.

He must have something very important already scheduled. 

His Feng Shui massager was having to reheat his anal beads.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Nothing says a fair trial like a majority of the jury coordinating lockstep with the defendant right @Dog?

you are down for this for everyone else, right?

Is this a political process or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Do oaths matter, or not?

every fucking day I give you a chance not to be a dumb hypocritical shill dog. Every day you fail.

Democrats called 3 constitutional witnesses to 1 for the Republicans. What's the problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chew on this one from the House rules. Republican requests wrt this provision were rejected....

Calling and questioning of witnesses

(j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, warbird said:

You have a problem.  Approximatey 97 % of the counties in the US went Red in 2016. Blue has to change it's tune to move that number.

No.  Red has to change the channel once in a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do Republicans prefer Trump to Pence?  @warbird   @Dog   This would be their opportunity to prostate themselves before their white god and pretend to believe in ethics.   The Republican Party seems to have abandoned all but two extreme wings,

Puritanical fervor.

Corruption by the privileged, policy position shifting on a whim.

Why is the second their favorite?    My guess, it’s more fun for the rich and privileged.    Pence inquisitions would hurt their sexual escapades and second income streams.     As long as the screwing is between consenting adults, Democrats let both go unhindered.   That consent thing seems to be the deal breaker.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lark said:

Why do Republicans prefer Trump to Pence?  @warbird   @Dog   This would be their opportunity to prostate themselves before their white god and pretend to believe in ethics.   The Republican Party seems to have abandoned all but two extreme wings,

Puritanical fervor.

Corruption by the privileged, policy position shifting on a whim.

Why is the second their favorite?    My guess, it’s more fun for the rich and privileged.    Pence inquisitions would hurt their sexual escapades and second income streams.     As long as the screwing is between consenting adults, Democrats let both go unhindered.   That consent thing seems to be the deal breaker.  

Choosing between them is not on the table. It was Trump, not Pence, who was elected president. The issue is whether or not he committed an impeachable offense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
9 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Lockstep by the Goebbels instruction book.

 

Nothing says a fair trial like a majority of the jury coordinating lockstep with the defendant right @Dog?

you are down for this for everyone else, right?

This so disgusting I created a separate thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Lark said:

Why do Republicans prefer Trump to Pence?  @warbird   @Dog   This would be their opportunity to prostate themselves before their white god and pretend to believe in ethics.   The Republican Party seems to have abandoned all but two extreme wings,

Puritanical fervor.

Corruption by the privileged, policy position shifting on a whim.

Why is the second their favorite?    My guess, it’s more fun for the rich and privileged.    Pence inquisitions would hurt their sexual escapades and second income streams.     As long as the screwing is between consenting adults, Democrats let both go unhindered.   That consent thing seems to be the deal breaker.  

While Pence will happily appoint conservative judges too, I suspect he's not quite as morally bankrupt...therefore flexible...as Trump is. Trump has no moral center, while Pence has one even if it is abhorrent.

And Trump can be handled like an ill-behaved child, the Europeans just proved that when they manipulated him into talking up Nato with reverse psychology. Trump's handlers know this about him, that they can goad and prod and flatter and suck up and he will move in a predictable fashion.

I'm not sure they think they can manipulate Pence as easily as Donald Beeblebrox.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Judiciary Committee votes to impeach, and Trump is on his way to his one line in history

Dec. 13, 2019 at 10:20 a.m. EST

Placing President Trump in the company of only presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach the 45th president on abuse of power and obstruction articles. Trump can hate-tweet, and House Republicans can rant and lie all they want, but Trump, after what is expected to be a near straight party-line vote in the full House next week, will have gotten his one line in history: “Trump was impeached for abusing his office to pressure a foreign nation to influence a presidential election in his favor and for obstructing Congress’s investigation of the same.”

 

Just another in the never ending list of Trump's accomplishments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Choosing between them is not on the table. It was Trump, not Pence, who was elected president. The issue is whether or not he committed an impeachable offense.

That is irrelevant.  The issue is whether loyalty to party is more important then loyalty to country.     Rep Nunes and Senators Graham and McConnel's quotes regarding President Clinton's impeachment alone are substantial evidence I'm right.   Nixon's crimes and the reaction of the prior generation.  Threats regarding impeaching Senator Clinton.   The multiple investigations of Benghazi, use of unsecure communication (Giuliani is clearly the posterchild of insecure / unsecure communication), etc, etc.    The Republicans have abandoned all pretense of justice or fairness in this matter.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jules said:

The Judiciary Committee votes to impeach, and Trump is on his way to his one line in history

Dec. 13, 2019 at 10:20 a.m. EST

Placing President Trump in the company of only presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach the 45th president on abuse of power and obstruction articles. Trump can hate-tweet, and House Republicans can rant and lie all they want, but Trump, after what is expected to be a near straight party-line vote in the full House next week, will have gotten his one line in history: “Trump was impeached for abusing his office to pressure a foreign nation to influence a presidential election in his favor and for obstructing Congress’s investigation of the same.”

 

Just another in the never ending list of Trump's accomplishments.

It might be the best impeachment ever. Many people are saying it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

Democrats called 3 constitutional witnesses to 1 for the Republicans. What's the problem?

Exactly. R’s should have had two. 2X nothing is much more fair just 1x nothing. Would have made all the difference. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Guardian seems to be a tad unfriendly towards Trump.

Quote

The president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was spotted arriving at the White House this morning not long before the impeachment vote on Capitol Hill, fresh from beetling around Ukraine gathering evidence against Democrats inside his and Donald Trump’s alternative universe.

I'm enjoying their coverage. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/dec/13/trump-news-today-live-impeachment-house-vote-democrats-2020-latest-updates

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:
5 hours ago, Jules said:

No.  Red has to change the channel once in a while.

Why would the Red want to get "dumbed down"?

Every day I'm convinced Team Red can't be dumbed down any more. This is even after listening to Gym Jordan, Collins, Gohmert, etc. ranting and raging and flecking spittle everywhere. How can it get any more stupid and disingenuous?

Then I come here...and I see you posting again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Every day I'm convinced Team Red can't be dumbed down any more. This is even after listening to Gym Jordan, Collins, Gohmert, etc. ranting and raging and flecking spittle everywhere. How can it get any more stupid and disingenuous?

Then I come here...and I see you posting again.

The problem with stupid people is that they don't know they are stupid.

The effect of this impeachment circus is going to be to ensure Trump's re-election and cost the Democrats a bunch of house seats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

Exactly. R’s should have had two. 2X nothing is much more fair just 1x nothing. Would have made all the difference. 

I can’t wait for the Dems to be in the minority so they can call for minority hearings!   I can hear it now!  Hails of derisive laughter!  Bruce!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

Every day I'm convinced Team Red can't be dumbed down any more. This is even after listening to Gym Jordan, Collins, Gohmert, etc. ranting and raging and flecking spittle everywhere. How can it get any more stupid and disingenuous?

Then I come here...and I see you posting again.

There are 2 sets of facts, some of them are fuzzy.  The left is all in on one set ignoring the other, the right, vice versa.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, warbird said:

There are 2 sets of facts, some of them are fuzzy.  The left is all in on one set ignoring the other, the right, vice versa.

No.

There are "facts" and there "not facts."

Believing "not facts" are indeed true does not convert them to actual facts.

The entire defense of Trump is a fact-free exercise.

There are no "alternative facts."

 

Someone can believe all day that the earth is flat, that does not make it a "fact" that is part of "another set of facts." It is a demonstrable falsehood, not a fact and no amount of acceptance makes it any more true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ishmael said:
10 minutes ago, warbird said:

There are 2 sets of facts, some of them are fuzzy.  The left is all in on one set ignoring the other, the right vice versa.

There is only one set of facts, you gibbering bobblehead.

That he is arguing this way - that "alternative facts" are a real thing - really indicates how far gone the Trump supporting MAGAworld has gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, warbird said:

There are 2 sets of facts, some of them are fuzzy.  The left is all in on one set ignoring the other, the right, vice versa.

Interesting...

I agree about the possible existence of multiple sets of facts. However, As all facts are true any set of facts must be made up of truths and cannot possibly negate any other list. 
 

Example in these hearings:

*The Congress claims the President’s refusal allow his branch to respond to Congressional Subpoenas is obstructing the Congress and believes that obstruction is an impeachable offense. 

*the President does not feel obligated to respond to Congressional subpoenas      unless the Supreme Court validates those subpoenas and believes the Resulting obstruction is Properly caused by his defense of the separation of powers 

 Each of the above is a fact. 

 Opinion is expressed by those who tell us which side is more correct about the positions for which they are advocating. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gouvernail said:

Interesting...

I agree about the possible existence of multiple sets of facts. However, As all facts are true any set of facts must be made up of truths and cannot possibly negate any other list. 
 

Example in these hearings:

*The Congress claims the President’s refusal allow his branch to respond to Congressional Subpoenas is obstructing the Congress and believes that obstruction is an impeachable offense. 

*the President does not feel obligated to respond to Congressional subpoenas      unless the Supreme Court validates those subpoenas and believes the Resulting obstruction is Properly caused by his defense of the separation of powers 

 Each of the above is a fact. 

 Opinion is expressed by those who tell us which side is more correct about the positions for which they are advocating. 
 

 

I believe that both instances above are in the hands of the courts.  Until a final ruling there is only guess and supposition.  See, that wasn't so hard. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/12/impeachment-articles-are-major-retreat-democrats/

Good read from the ultra right wing Washington Post:lol:

The impeachment articles are a vindication for Trump

House Democrats announce articles of impeachment at the Capitol on Tuesday. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP) House Democrats announce articles of impeachment at the Capitol on Tuesday. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
Image without a caption
Columnist
Dec. 12, 2019 at 12:50 p.m. CST

That’s it?

After three years in which Democrats accused President Trump of a host of criminal acts — from bribery and extortion to campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and even treason — they have finally introduced articles of impeachment that allege none of those things. Not only have they dropped the charge of bribery, the words that gripped Washington — “quid pro quo” — don’t even appear in the document.

This is a major retreat by Democrats, who have effectively admitted the president did not commit any statutory crimes. Indeed, if these articles are approved, this will be the first presidential impeachment in history in which no statutory crimes are even alleged. In that alone, Trump can claim vindication.

AD

Keep Reading

Instead, Democrats settled on two noncriminal allegations: obstruction of Congress and abuse of power. Both charges are farcical.

 

Take obstruction. Democrats claim Trump engaged in “unprecedented” defiance of congressional subpoenas and “sought to arrogate to himself” the right to withhold documents and witnesses “as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representatives.” Please. If anyone is “arrogating” “unilateral” power to themselves, it is House Democrats.

Democrats seem not to understand that the legislative and the executive are equal branches of government. They do not get the last word when a president invokes executive privilege. When a dispute arises between the two branches, the president has a right to appeal to the third equal branch of government — the judiciary. Trump did that, as is his constitutional right. If he appealed to the courts and lost but still refused to cooperate, thenCongress would have every right to charge him with obstruction of Congress

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not my usual navy history, but interesting argument.    https://apple.news/A8KPuVyvqRCqx1RcXxi-jJw

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/10/trump-johnson-impeachment-edmund-ross/

The best parallel to Trump isn’t Nixon; it’s Andrew Johnson, a belligerent and destructive faux-populist who escaped conviction in the Senate by the thinnest of margins. Yet for more than a century, the official narrative of the first presidential impeachment has been butchered and distorted, reduced to a historical curiosity,

ANDREW JOHNSON was a sort of anti-Lincoln—a stumpy, vengeful, subliterate tailor who rose through the ranks of the Democratic Party in East Tennessee by railing against elites

Alarm bells began to sound early on. Johnson was erratic. He was wavering. Frederick Douglass met with him at the White House and came away disturbed. In the meeting, the president had suggested deporting millions of freedmen and appeared not to know that Douglass had been enslaved. 

(Johnson) said that Phillips and Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-Pa.) should be executed because they were ready to turn the country over to the black man while putting the white man in chains. In St. Louis, he said the people massacred in New Orleans were the real traitors, that the white people who did it were merely protecting themselves from the coming race war,

Then, as now, it was easy to fall down a rabbit hole. Just as some Trump critics went searching for the mythical Moscow “pee tape,” members of Congress spent months searching for evidence that would implicate Johnson in Lincoln’s death.

they share a common element: an open hostility to democratic ideals. That was Andrew Johnson’s high crime, and there was nothing conspiratorial or nitpicky about it. He was doing it in plain sight. The rest was noise.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2019 at 12:02 AM, astro said:
 

Wow, another Warpedbird bullshit statement.

Complete coverage of Russia's campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.
 
Oct 30, 2019 - But it's not the only nation with an eye on U.S. politics. American officials sounding the alarm about foreign efforts to disrupt the 2020 election ...
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States.
 
Nov 24, 2019 - How Russian intelligence officers interfered in the 2016 election .... It was all part of a broad campaign to disrupt the presidential election.
Feb 27, 2019 - Some senators credit more-aggressive U.S. tactics with averting Russian interference in the elections.

Speaking of Russians and hacking, how much you wanna bet this guy meets with an unfortunate "accident"?

Jailed Russian hacker: I hacked Democrats 'under the command' of Russian intelligence agents

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2019 at 4:37 PM, warbird said:

No  , counties are lamd, imdistry amd productiom, cities are panzy enclaves.

And don't forget that counties are apparently populated by semi literates

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too bad Van Drew didn't change parties before the impeachment votes. He's voting lockstep with the Republicans, really should be counted as one for this exercise. I give him a downvote for trying to play both sides to try and keep his seat. I hope the voters notice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2019 at 3:02 PM, Bus Driver said:

Speaking of Russians and hacking, how much you wanna bet this guy meets with an unfortunate "accident"?

Jailed Russian hacker: I hacked Democrats 'under the command' of Russian intelligence agents

He would be well advised to avoid Air Vladdy for his next traveling excursion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites