Impeachment Inquiry What do y'all think?

[TexasTiger 12,953]

2 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Comprehend the thread

Please do

[bigbird 60,568]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Please do

Just to be clear, rather than prove yourself right and out me as the Trump defender you think me to be, your choice is to continue with the simplistic repartee. Noted and telling.

[TexasTiger 12,953]

19 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Just to be clear, rather than prove yourself right and out me as the Trump defender you think me to be, your choice is to continue with the simplistic repartee. Noted and telling.

😆

[augolf1716 21,215]

[TexasTiger 12,953]

40 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

🍻

 

[augolf1716 21,215]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

🍻

 

rookie

[TexasTiger 12,953]

28 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

rookie

He spilled a drop.

[augolf1716 21,215]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

He spilled a drop.

3

[bigbird 60,568]

On 12/19/2019 at 8:07 AM, bigbird said:

Thoughts on Pelosi potentially holding up sending the articles to the Senate?

 

For me, I think it would be a huge mistake for the left. If it was so imperative to impeach with unprecedented speed and with Trump being such a threat to national defense, then why hold up the process. It makes the whole thing look even more political and weak and draws it out even longer into the new year. If drawn out through the early part of the year, that will really affect the primaries and remain the foremost issue. I don't think that is a winning strategy.

 “So if it’s serious and urgent, it should come over. If it isn’t, don’t send it over.”

-Dianne Feinstein (Calif.)

 

She is an obvious Trump defender so TIFWIW

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/477461-pressure-building-on-pelosi-over-articles-of-impeachment

[DKW 86 7,429]

Whenever, if ever, they do send the articles over, I predict screeching such as no one has ever heard before for then Senate to proceed. 

We have so much more to be working on in this country...

[TexasTiger 12,953]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Whenever, if ever, they do send the articles over, I predict screeching such as no one has ever heard before for then Senate to proceed. 

We have so much more to be working on in this country...

Yeah, and Mitch has the Senate hard at work on none of those things.

[DKW 86 7,429]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Whenever, if ever, they do send the articles over, I predict screeching such as no one has ever heard before for then Senate to proceed. 

We have so much more to be working on in this country...

 

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Yeah, and Mitch has the Senate hard at work on none of those things.

Well, I was actually talking about both houses of congress about no progress. The Reps were the same way under Obama. There truly is very little difference. 
But I am making fun of the Dems WHEN/IF they send the articles over. We all know they will be shrill as can be to get the Impeachment trial going. This is politics as theatre now.  https://www.thelines.com/odds/election/ 

Candidate	bet365	betway
Donald Trump (R)	-120	-125
Joe Biden (D)	+450	+500
Bernie Sanders (D)	+700	+700
Elizabeth Warren (D)	+1100	+1200
Pete Buttigieg (D)	+1400	+1400
Michael Bloomberg (D)	+2000	+1400
Hillary Clinton (D)	+2800	+2800
Amy Klobuchar	+5000	+5000
Mike Pence (R)	+6600	+5000
Tulsi Gabbard (D)	+10000	+5000
Cory Booker (D)	+20000	+6600

 

[TexasTiger 12,953]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/5/24/18637163/trump-pelosi-democrats-bills-congress

[DKW 86 7,429]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/5/24/18637163/trump-pelosi-democrats-bills-congress

Because passing legislation that has zero chance of passing both houses would be too much trouble. 

One party passing a bunch of DOA Legislation means nothing. 

It only counts if it gets enacted.

[TexasTiger 12,953]

25 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Because passing legislation that has zero chance of passing both houses would be too much trouble. 

One party passing a bunch of DOA Legislation means nothing. 

It only counts if it gets enacted.

If one body refuses to do anything, focus on them.

[alexava 6,973]

5 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

If one body refuses to do anything, focus on them.

Both bodies should compromise and accomplish something. 

[TexasTiger 12,953]

51 minutes ago, alexava said:

Both bodies should compromise and accomplish something. 

Sure. Takes two willing parties. Mitch is solely concerned with judges. He passed his deficit ballooning tax cut with a Republican house and has no other agenda.

[DKW 86 7,429]

12 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Sure. Takes two willing parties. Mitch is solely concerned with judges. He passed his deficit ballooning tax cut with a Republican house and has no other agenda.

If one body makes legislation with poison pills for the other, what have they really done? Now both parties should be making real legislation, and i see your "Well at least they did something" point. But if they Republicans voted thru an Abortion Ban, do we blame the Democrats for not voting on it?

[TexasTiger 12,953]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

If one body makes legislation with poison pills for the other, what have they really done? Now both parties should be making real legislation, and i see your "Well at least they did something" point. But if they Republicans voted thru an Abortion Ban, do we blame the Democrats for not voting on it?

Straw man hypothetical. Some bills may have a partisan slant, but not all. And for some that do, the Senate can pass their version and both houses can try to hammer it out like they used to do. Mitch has no interest.

[DKW 86 7,429]

21 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Straw man hypothetical. Some bills may have a partisan slant, but not all. And for some that do, the Senate can pass their version and both houses can try to hammer it out like they used to do. Mitch has no interest.

Well I would agree with that about 90% of the time. Today, like i said, what may seem like a great idea to a Dem may seem like total insanity to a Rep and vice versa. MITCH HAS NO INTEREST AND PELOSI HAS NO INTEREST. Basically the hacks in either have no interest. Strawman, I wonder almost everyday if anyone on this board has any clue WTF that really means anymore.  On this board "Strawman" usually means "i am about to completely ignore reason and everything obvious to the most casual observer." 1) I never said, stated, implied, etc that ALL legislation has poison pills. You introduced the strawman by inferring completely incorrectly that I did something I did not do. You are, in actuality, the one with the straw man argument.   2) Then you persist in the fantasy that ALL political ills belong to only one party. They obviously do not. We have WASTED 3 years or so with Congress tied in knots over topics that when it is said and done have gone nowhere, never were going anywhere, and came with a written guarantee to accomplish almost nothing. The previous 8 years, the Republicans did all but the same thing to the Obama Agenda. We have spent 11 years with nothing but partisan wars going on in DC. But you cant admit that because then your side would also have to change and that is never going to happen...

The way we used to do business is no longer working. Poison Pill Bills seem to be the action of the day. I do not like the way that DC has gone and would vocally advocate  for term limits to get rid of the worst offenders. The partisans must be gotten rid of on both sides. 

It seems to many these days that hypocrisy is the main production material in DC. People that were vocally against Clinton's Impeachment are now 180 degrees removed from their stances then. On the other hand, those that were so for Clinton's Impeachment are now 180 against the ideas that they espoused then as well. DC has turned into a swamp of nothing but partisanship and partisan hacks talking points. What we need is to get back to legislating and policy. What we are doing today is wasting time on topics like Impeachment that really mean nothing to most of the 330M people in the US. 

[TexasTiger 12,953]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Well I would agree with that about 90% of the time. Today, like i said, what may seem like a great idea to a Dem may seem like total insanity to a Rep and vice versa. MITCH HAS NO INTEREST AND PELOSI HAS NO INTEREST. Basically the hacks in either have no interest. Strawman, I wonder almost everyday if anyone on this board has any clue WTF that really means anymore.  On this board "Strawman" usually means "i am about to completely ignore reason and everything obvious to the most casual observer." 1) I never said, stated, implied, etc that ALL legislation has poison pills. You introduced the strawman by inferring completely incorrectly that I did something I did not do. You are, in actuality, the one with the straw man argument.   2) Then you persist in the fantasy that ALL political ills belong to only one party. They obviously do not. We have WASTED 3 years or so with Congress tied in knots over topics that when it is said and done have gone nowhere, never were going anywhere, and came with a written guarantee to accomplish almost nothing. The previous 8 years, the Republicans did all but the same thing to the Obama Agenda. We have spent 11 years with nothing but partisan wars going on in DC. But you cant admit that because then your side would also have to change and that is never going to happen...

The way we used to do business is no longer working. Poison Pill Bills seem to be the action of the day. I do not like the way that DC has gone and would vocally advocate  for term limits to get rid of the worst offenders. The partisans must be gotten rid of on both sides. 

It seems to many these days that hypocrisy is the main production material in DC. People that were vocally against Clinton's Impeachment are now 180 degrees removed from their stances then. On the other hand, those that were so for Clinton's Impeachment are now 180 against the ideas that they espoused then as well. DC has turned into a swamp of nothing but partisanship and partisan hacks talking points. What we need is to get back to legislating and policy. What we are doping today is wasting time of topics like Impeachment that really mean nothing to most of the 330M people in the US. 

🙄Mitch has no legislative agenda. There’s nothing to work with. There are House bills that compromises could be reached on, or at least attempted. But rant on, David. Insist the complex is black and white.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump

[bigbird 60,568]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/01/14/politics/nancy-pelosi-mitch-mcconnnell/index.html

[DKW 86 7,429]

 

Quote

 

https://yellowhammernews.com/mo-brooks-calls-for-federal-rules-of-evidence-to-be-used-in-senate-impeachment-trial/

Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05) on Thursday joined eight other conservative House members in sending a letter to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) urging them to adopt the Federal Rules of Evidence for the Senate’s eventual impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

The House on Wednesday evening impeached Trump on two separate articles alleging “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.” No Republicans voted to impeach the president, and three Democrats even broke with their party by standing against impeachment.

The next procedural step before the Senate can hold an impeachment trial is for the House to pass a measure approving impeachment managers — essentially the House’s prosecutors. The soonest that can happen is January 7, as the House on Thursday afternoon adjourned until then. After managers are approved, the House must then officially deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Chief Justice Roberts will preside over the trial in the Senate, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution. The Senate may adopt its own guidelines for how the trial process will be conducted.

In a statement, Brooks outlined, “The best way for the American people to discern the truth about impeachment is by using evidentiary standards developed by our judicial system over the past two centuries. The Federal Rules of Evidence, used in all federal courtrooms, generally excludes hearsay, gossip, rumor, opinions and otherwise irrelevant evidence from consideration for one simple reason: history has revealed that such evidence is unreliable and makes it harder for judges and juries to determine the truth of a matter. The House’s impeachment proceedings have been devoid of evidentiary standards. The Senate should and can do better.”

“In America, everyone has the right to a fair trial— presidents included,” he continued. “The formal adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence would give Chief Justice Roberts a clear-cut standard for deciding admissibility of evidence during the Senate impeachment trial.”

“An impeachment trial is as consequential as it gets in America’s political system. There is simply no room for bad, misleading or otherwise weak evidence our judicial experts know, from experience, should never be considered. Chief Justice Roberts and the Senate should adopt the Federal Rules of Evidence and exclude substandard evidence from consideration during the impeachment trial,” Brooks concluded.

 

Summation: A member of a bipartisan group in the HOR has asked the Senate to use formal rules of evidence used for 200+ years be formally adopted for Impeachment. If we went by 200 years of jurisprudence, the charge of Obstruction of Congress would be tossed before the trial part even started and no witnesses that the HOR suddenly now wants, but did not even depose, would also be tossed. 

Grownups and all their logic be damned. This is going nowhere and thanks to a rushed Impeachment process likely should not be going anywhere. Why did the HOR not wait until the courts had spoken? Politics. They never took this serious and the grownups know why.

 

[bigbird 60,568]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Why did the HOR not wait until the courts had spoken?

Because it was imperative due to national security...that's why they've waited a month or so to send it over.

[TexasTiger 12,953]

4 hours ago, bigbird said:

Because it was imperative due to national security...that's why they've waited a month or so to send it over.

You’re confusing that with the excuse to kill the Iranian without congressional consult.