Pelosi holds vote Thursday

[Shad]

Listen, the Democrats are in charge of the House. You don’t like that, I understand.

That has nothing to do with it. The Dems have no restriction in Schiff while forcing the GOP to go through Schiff. That is an abuse of power by the Dems, nothing more.

Trump is President, I don’t like that. But we both have to accept reality whether we like it or not.

It isn't about who we like. It is about a party that has been screaming impeachment since day 1 having sole control over the matter while in previous impeachment cases the minority party had more power to act on it's own as per my citations and quotes. All you have done is embrace tyranny of the majority.

 

[fantome profane]

That has nothing to do with it. The Dems have no restriction in Schiff while forcing the GOP to go through Schiff.

It has everything to do with it. The Dems have no restrictions because they control the house. Just like the Republicans controlled the house in the Clinton impeachment.

 

[Shad]

It has everything to do with it. The Dems have no restrictions because they control the house. Just like the Republicans controlled the house in the Clinton impeachment.

Wrong as the investigation was done by Starr not the GOP.

Amusing that you have no issues when Dems have no restriction but if the GOP even gets a portion of that power you object. Thanks for demonstrating your bias.

 

[fantome profane]

Wrong as the investigation was done by Starr not the GOP.

Yes, and after Ken Starr submitted his report, and all the grand jury evidence, the House held impeachment hearings. And during those impeachment hearings the Republicans had unfettered subpoena power and the Democrats did not.

 

[Shad]

Yes, and after Ken Starr submitted his report, and all the grand jury evidence, the House held impeachment hearings.

Which is not an investigation and articles of impeachment were filed. More so the articles had bipartisan support. The Dem resolution is merely paper work to rubber stamp what they were already doing.

And during those impeachment hearings the Republicans had unfettered subpoena power and the Democrats did not.

Nope as per my previous citations.

 

[pearl]

Second, this is pretty much all about that blasted phone call, it seems more than a little weird that everybody is all excited about it, the 'whistle blower' and what others might have overheard. WE HAVE THE BLASTED TRANSCRIPT.

The blasted phone call is but the frosting on the cake, its only one Article of Impeachment. The transcript is not as forthcoming as it seems. The men and women who have testified have undeniable creditability and have served in both republican and democratic administrations. If you want a model of political motivation for impeachment you need only remember Clinton who was impeached for lying about a 'blow' job.

 

[dianaiad]

The blasted phone call is but the frosting on the cake, its only one Article of Impeachment. The transcript is not as forthcoming as it seems. The men and women who have testified have undeniable creditability and have served in both republican and democratic administrations. If you want a model of political motivation for impeachment you need only remember Clinton who was impeached for lying about a 'blow' job.

There are no 'articles of impeachment.' You are getting ahead of yourself here.

Clinton was impeached for lying, under oath, to congress. Does it matter what he was lying ABOUT?

BTW, he was also disbarred and fined $25,000 for doing so. That is, he was disbarred from practicing law in Arkansas for five years, and from practicing in front of the Supreme Court forever. Not that he ever DID practice before the Supreme Court, but hey....

So...he lied to congress about using his power as POTUS to get a 21 year old intern to 'service' him IN THE OVAL OFFICE. Sometimes the details surrounding the 'BJ" are important, y'know? Your statement seems to absolve him and trivialize it. It wasn't the "BJ." He could have gone/hired a professional and perhaps had her show up at a hotel room...but no. OR he could have realized that he was in a fish bowl, by his own choice, and given himself an eight year hiatus on that sort of "relief," but again no. He got his jollies THIS way.

BTW, I was not in favor of kicking him out of office or even the impeachment. I thought that the exposure (pardon me for that) of his actions and his disbarment were sufficient. The American people elected him, they knew what they were getting when they did, and they got it.

He wasn't the worst president we've ever had. Not the best, but not the worst. Buchanan still holds that honor for all sorts of reasons, including pretty much ensuring the Civil War. Buchanan was, btw, a Democrat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are no 'articles of impeachment.' You are getting ahead of yourself here.

Clinton was impeached for lying, under oath, to congress. Does it matter what he was lying ABOUT?

BTW, he was also disbarred and fined $25,000 for doing so. That is, he was disbarred from practicing law in Arkansas for five years, and from practicing in front of the Supreme Court forever. Not that he ever DID practice before the Supreme Court, but hey....

So...he lied to congress about using his power as POTUS to get a 21 year old intern to 'service' him IN THE OVAL OFFICE. Sometimes the details surrounding the 'BJ" are important, y'know? Your statement seems to absolve him and trivialize it. It wasn't the "BJ." He could have gone/hired a professional and perhaps had her show up at a hotel room...but no. OR he could have realized that he was in a fish bowl, by his own choice, and given himself an eight year hiatus on that sort of "relief," but again no. He got his jollies THIS way.

BTW, I was not in favor of kicking him out of office or even the impeachment. I thought that the exposure (pardon me for that) of his actions and his disbarment were sufficient. The American people elected him, they knew what they were getting when they did, and they got it.

He wasn't the worst president we've ever had. Not the best, but not the worst. Buchanan still holds that honor for all sorts of reasons, including pretty much ensuring the Civil War. Buchanan was, btw, a Democrat.

Trump probably tops Buchanan. And Clinton was one of our better Presidents. I could not stand the man, but he could and did work effectively with the opposition. One has to hand it to him for that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Now it looks like Senate Republicans may switch over to "Okay, there was a quid pro quo, but there was no corrupt intent so it's not impeachable".

First it was "the whistleblower doesn't have first-hand info", which was negated both by multiple witnesses giving the same accounts and testimony from a person with first-hand info. Then it was "it's illegitimate since the House hasn't held a vote", which was negated by this week's vote. Now it's "Sure he did it, but so what?"

Told ya.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now it looks like Senate Republicans may switch over to "Okay, there was a quid pro quo, but there was no corrupt intent so it's not impeachable".

First it was "the whistleblower doesn't have first-hand info", which was negated both by multiple witnesses giving the same accounts and testimony from a person with first-hand info. Then it was "it's illegitimate since the House hasn't held a vote", which was negated by this week's vote. Now it's "Sure he did it, but so what?"

Told ya.

Perhaps the Republicans are using the frog in a pot of boiling water strategy. Admit to the obvious immediately and he has to be impeached and convicted. Using this tactic and it won't be long before they admit that he has dead babies for breakfast, but what the hey. Every President did that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps the Republicans are using the frog in a pot of boiling water strategy. Admit to the obvious immediately and he has to be impeached and convicted. Using this tactic and it won't be long before they admit that he has dead babies for breakfast, but what the hey. Every President did that.

Could be. I have to wonder about this strategy though....if they try and argue there was no "corrupt intent", then they would be forced to say that the bizarre Crowdstrike/Ukraine conspiracy theory (the "quo") is legitimate. Senators are supposed to be more sober and rational, so will they really want to be seen as loony bird conspiracy theorists and face questions about whether they truly believe such obvious nonsense?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Could be. I have to wonder about this strategy though....if they try and argue there was no "corrupt intent", then they would be forced to say that the bizarre Crowdstrike/Ukraine conspiracy theory (the "quo") is legitimate. Senators are supposed to be more sober and rational, so will they really want to be seen as loony bird conspiracy theorists and face questions about whether they truly believe such obvious nonsense?

With honest and intelligent people this would not work. But remember, we are talking about Trump voters here

 

[columbus]

Dems were in control before the vote and after the vote.

But the Republicans were in control when it mattered.
When the rules were being written.

The Democrats just don't feel inclined to change them to benefit Trump.

Maybe the problem is that Trump and the Republicans are accustomed to changing the rules to suit their interests, and in this case that will be hard to do. Because the people who got elected to the House don't want to and have no reason to.

Tom

 

[Shad]

But the Republicans were in control when it mattered.
When the rules were being written.

Which rules?

The Democrats just don't feel inclined to change them to benefit Trump.

Which is why they are hypocrites just like the GOP

Maybe the problem is that Trump and the Republicans are accustomed to changing the rules to suit their interests, and in this case that will be hard to do. Because the people who got elected to the House don't want to and have no reason to.

Tom

Dems have an agenda to impeach from day 1

 

[fantome profane]

Dems have an agenda to impeach from day 1

Are you kidding me with this nonsense? You think Pelosi was eager to impeach? She fought it as hard as she could for as long as she could.

 

[Shad]

Are you kidding me with this nonsense? You think Pelosi was eager to impeach? She fought it as hard as she could for as long as she could.

I think you are misplacing why she fought against it and how she bypassed it via "investigations". She is on record even in April that investigating rump can be done without impeachment articles. If she actually invoked the articles GOP would have similar power as the chair. She also was not House leader for 2 years.

Schiff has been babbling about impeachment and collusion from day 1. He even claimed he had evidence before the Mueller report was released. Yet after all that babble the investigation isn't about Russia.

Resisting a call for impeachment is not being against impeachment itself

 

[columbus]

Which rules?

?
The rules governing these proceedings. What are you talking about?

Which is why they are hypocrites just like the GOP

How so? In this context?
The Democrats are using the weaponized process passed by the Republicans back when they were out to get Obama. It didn't work. Because compared to Trump, Obama was squeaky clean and excruciatingly correct.
Tom

 

[Shad]

?
The rules governing these proceedings. What are you talking about?

The rules Dems just passed or the rule from a previous Congress?

How so? In this context?

Dem objected to some of the rules the GOP had. Now that they are in control they use the same rules they objected to. Do not see the problem?

The Democrats are using the weaponized process passed by the Republicans back when they were out to get Obama. It didn't work. Because compared to Trump, Obama was squeaky clean and excruciatingly correct.
Tom

\

Again Dems complained about it now they are using what they complained against?

Obama bombed US civilians without due process. Trump has not done anything like that. Obama's scandals are buried by the press. Do some research.

 

[metis]

How many plea deals and indictments were there against those in Obama's administration? How about Trump's?

The proof is in the pudding.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The rules Dems just passed or the rule from a previous Congress?




Dem objected to some of the rules the GOP had. Now that they are in control they use the same rules they objected to. Do not see the problem?


\

Again Dems complained about it now they are using what they complained against?

Obama bombed US civilians without due process. Trump has not done anything like that. Obama's scandals are buried by the press. Do some research.

The Republicans had an opportunity to have some input, but they all decided just to vote against the impeachment process instead. Besides that, they're the ones who made up the rules they are currently using in the first place. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

Trump abandoned the Kurds to die in Syria after they helped the US fight ISIS, because he didn't need them anymore. He's no saint.