Jump to content
knapplc

The First Trump Impeachment Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

OK, the way I understood it was that in 2015, the Republican controlled congress changed the rules so that the majority in the house sets the rules for impeachment and the majority in the Senate sets the rules for the trial.  That's why when the Democrats set the rules in the House without input from the Republicans, their outrage was so meaningless.


Well.....now this is the rules put in place for the Senate.  The majority gets to set the rules moving forward.  

 

But don't let anyone equate the requests of House Republicans during the impeachment inquiry (deposing irrelevant witnesses like Nellie Ohr, Fusion GPS, etc.) with reasonable requests from Senate Democrats during an impeachment trial (actually having witnesses at all, deposing Bolton, Mulvaney and other witnesses with more direct knowledge, etc.). That is a false equivalency they want you to dupe people with. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Senate rules are set by 51 or more votes.  Not by just the majority party, which in the Senate is the GOP by a slimmer margin. 
 

The Dems have such an overwhelming majority in the house that essentially everything they wanted, they got.  

 

As mentioned earlier these “rules “ for majority voting were set up by a GOP controlled congress.  Any claims by the GOP of this being an unfair impeachment process is nothing more than baseless whining.  

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine there being a different set of rules for the Orange Bowl each time we played?  

 

I don't understand why these things are negotiable - this just doesn't come up that often.  It's a trial, there should be witnesses. How was it done last time?  How was it done the first time?  Why would now be any different just because the turtle holds the gavel?  Stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Yeah....but, like I said, the Republican's tears over how the Dems in the house handled it are nothing but a bunch of crocodile tears.  

 

Likewise, if the Dems start throwing a fit because the Republicans in the Senate do the same thing, well.....stop with the fake tears.

 

 

 

What did the Democrats do that they shouldn't have done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Can you imagine there being a different set of rules for the Orange Bowl each time we played?  

 

I don't understand why these things are negotiable - this just doesn't come up that often.  It's a trial, there should be witnesses. How was it done last time?  How was it done the first time?  Why would now be any different just because the turtle holds the gavel?  Stupid.

Well, in 2015, the Republicans thought there would be a really good chance they would be using these rules to impeach Hillary.  

 

Karma's a b!^@h.

 

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

What did the Democrats do that they shouldn't have done?

 

Didn't say they did.

Share this post


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

Yeah....but, like I said, the Republican's tears over how the Dems in the house handled it are nothing but a bunch of crocodile tears.  

 

Likewise, if the Dems start throwing a fit because the Republicans in the Senate do the same thing, well.....stop with the fake tears.

 

 

It's not the concept of Separation of Powers but how they have been used. The Rs allowed the Ds to call witnesses in the Clinton Impeachment Circus.  The Ds did not reciprocate despite several prominent Reps who'd been there in 1998 and were 'impeached' by their previous contradictory statements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

It's not the concept of Separation of Powers but how they have been used. The Rs allowed the Ds to call witnesses in the Clinton Impeachment Circus.  The Ds did not reciprocate despite several prominent Reps who'd been there in 1998 and were 'impeached' by their previous contradictory statements. 

Then maybe the Republicans shouldn’t have changed the rules in between with the plan to use it against Hillary and used against Obama. 
 


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/10/28/house-republicans-subpoena-trump-943265


Maybe the republicans need to start realizing what they do, they then give the Democrats the power to do. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

It's not the concept of Separation of Powers but how they have been used. The Rs allowed the Ds to call witnesses in the Clinton Impeachment Circus.  The Ds did not reciprocate despite several prominent Reps who'd been there in 1998 and were 'impeached' by their previous contradictory statements. 

if i recall correctly the republicans asked for something like 8-10 witnesses and the dems allowed about half of them.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Then maybe the Republicans shouldn’t have changed the rules in between with the plan to use it against Hillary and used against Obama. 
 


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/10/28/house-republicans-subpoena-trump-943265


Maybe the republicans need to start realizing what they do, they then give the Democrats the power to do. 

 Since the minority party could never quash the subpoena, this hardly matches when Reid and the Ds did away with the filibuster.  But note the Politico is saying this power could be used for "Oversight."  Oversight is all there is here.  Even Alan Dershowitz called out his party for trying to transform oversight into high crimes or misdemeanors.  

 

@BigRedBuster if someone was trying to sneak into your house would you copy the blueprints for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

  

 

@BigRedBuster if someone was trying to sneak into your house would you copy the blueprints for them?

 

obstruction is good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

It's not the concept of Separation of Powers but how they have been used. The Rs allowed the Ds to call witnesses in the Clinton Impeachment Circus.  The Ds did not reciprocate despite several prominent Reps who'd been there in 1998 and were 'impeached' by their previous contradictory statements. 

 

No judge would allow testimony in a trial about an unrelated case. Witnesses for Bank Robbery A are not called to testify as material witnesses in Bank Robbery B.

 

If you want Hunter Biden investigated, go investigate him. Nobody is stopping Trump or House Republicans from doing that. He won't do it because he knows there's nothing there. It's a distraction tactic and his followers fall for it every time.

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

@BigRedBuster if someone was trying to sneak into your house would you copy the blueprints for them?

What???

 

6 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

But note the Politico is saying this power could be used for "Oversight."  Oversight is all there is here. 

You are right about that.  This entire issue is about oversight.  Funny thing....this President doesn't believe in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

@BigRedBuster if someone was trying to sneak into your house would you copy the blueprints for them?

This is what I don't get.  The one thing I would have loved about Trump was if he was actually serious about "draining the swamp" and getting rid of the corruption we all can see in our government.

 

If he is innocent and has nothing to hide, he would make a HUGE statement by being forthright and setting a solid precedent that the Executive Branch must fully cooperate with the Oversight Committee of Congress.  That way corrupt Presidents aren't allowed to continue to corrupt the office.  Instead, Trump is wanting to involve the courts and risk setting a precedent that does the opposite.  Trump is potentially making it harder to fight corruption in the swamp.  

 

He's either guilty of what he's being accused of, or he is actively breaking a campaign promise that 99.9% of Americans would support him on.   And here you are, not just defending Trump, but this exact action.  Why are you okay with corruption in our government @Notre Dame Joe, present or future????  
:

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, funhusker said:

The one thing I would have loved about Trump was if he was actually serious about "draining the swamp" and getting rid of the corruption we all can see in our government.

 

Yep. Obama was serious about healthcare, so we have Obamacare. Passed early in his second year in office.

 

Trump claimed to be serious about fixing corruption in Washington. We're three years into Trump's term and all he's done is add more snakes and toads to the mix.

 

And encouraged a turtle. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...