Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts



Not looking good for witnesses.  Looks like the cowaRds may have won this round.  But the fight isn't over.  

 

We'll see though.  Apparently Lamar Alexander is announcing tonight if he will vote for witnesses or not.   That will likely answer the witness question.

 

I'm already preparing my letter to Sasse and Fischer.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment

18 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

Not looking good for witnesses.  Looks like the cowaRds may have won this round.  But the fight isn't over.  

 

We'll see though.  Apparently Lamar Alexander is announcing tonight if he will vote for witnesses or not.   That will likely answer the witness question.

 

I'm already preparing my letter to Sasse and Fischer.

Email or an actual letter?

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Email or an actual letter?

Leaning towards letters.  But I will first give them a chance to respond to the media as to why they chose to not call witnesses or convict.   I’ve decided that if I’m going to complain about their performance then I should give them an opportunity to justify it. 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Republicans have badly damaged the Republic tonight.

 

Assuming Romney, Collins and Murkowski are the only yeses and Roberts sits on his hands instead of breaking a 50-50 tie out of some misguided sense of deference, this will have been a sham with Republicans voting to deny information to us because it's what best for them politically.

 

"Yeah there's relevant witnesses but there's no sense in hearing from them, we already know what we're gonna do and it might be bad for us."

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Maybe if Rand, a GD Libertarian of all things, cared about the whistleblower's right to protection from persecution for blowing the whistle, would phrase his question differently instead of trying to out them, he wouldn't have anything to bellyache about.

 

Unless he just wants to out them and that's the point.

 

Rand Paul is a frequent disappointment. At least his dad actually walked the walk. Rand is just a douche coasting on his dad's coattails.

But I though refusing to reveal information is proof of guilt  <_<

 

14 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

That’s true, except if it involves concealing evidence of suspected wrongdoing by the president. If there is a reasonable belief that this has occurred then Congress has the right to investigate and obtain that information.  The president cannot hide behind privilege if he has done wrong.  Otherwise Congress’ constitutional authority would be diminished and the president’s activities would be unchecked. That’s exactly what is happening in this case. 

 

Again, if that they thought that circular logic was persuasive they could have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas like every other lawyer.  Instead the Ds on CSPAN are most absurd legal theory I've heard in a real trial.  They're trying to say that the mere assertion of a privilege not the Executive's legal right but somehow a high crime.   

 

Let's try this logic on the other hand.  Adam Schiff must testify concerning all of his dealings with the so called whistleblower in sworn and public testimony.  Said man cannot hide behind the Whistleblower statute if it would conceal evidence of wrongdoing.  And we know he did wrong because he is trying to say anonymous.

 

See if the Rs thought this was a compelling argument they could subpoena Schiff and co. tomorrow and got to Court when he doesn't comply. 

  • Plus1 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

But I though refusing to reveal information is proof of guilt  <_<

 

 

Again, if that they thought that circular logic was persuasive they could have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas like every other lawyer.  Instead the Ds on CSPAN are most absurd legal theory I've heard in a real trial.  They're trying to say that the mere assertion of a privilege not the Executive's legal right but somehow a high crime.   

 

Let's try this logic on the other hand.  Adam Schiff must testify concerning all of his dealings with the so called whistleblower in sworn and public testimony.  Said man cannot hide behind the Whistleblower statute if it would conceal evidence of wrongdoing.  And we know he did wrong because he is trying to say anonymous.

 

See if the Rs thought this was a compelling argument they could subpoena Schiff and co. tomorrow and got to Court when he doesn't comply. 

FFS

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...