Impeachment

[OUBubba]

A snowflake, for instance, is a college student wanting only to be around their own gender or race contrary to the sacred "separate is not equal" conclusion of Brown v The Board of Education because their soft minds cannot take anything except what they need to hear.

The impeachment proceedings on the contrary are a continuation of the Democrats attempt to remove Trump from office which began on day one. The battle for impeachment is not one of good faith and care for our country. It is about raw power. The Russian collusion gambit failed and we have moved on from that to this. You can say whatever you want but if you believe that the Democrats are soberly and rationally upholding the Constitution then I'd say you are too biased.

The use of the snowflake sarcasm is a case in point. The Leftist extremists are snowflakes. It is painfully obvious that they are mentally incapable of living in the real world. I don't know why you take up for them.

But here we are and in the end we will see what the problem is with Trump's comments about Biden and son. The Left was very sure of themselves about the Mueller investigation with many prominent politicians declaring they would vote to impeach Trump PRIOR to the release of the report. Simply put, that's all I needed to hear to know they only wanted to regain power.

Bro....it's a term I used ironically to some extent. That said, Trump is the biggest snowflake out there and you know it in your heart. They have to print off sunshine tweets for him to review and make notes on with his sharpie. I said half believing it that he'd be a horrible POTUS just because of his hair. He obviously has no one around him to tell him how that crap looks. Only "yes" men. That has held up.

But, just to be clear let's summarize these events. The phone call that was the coup de grace of a shadow foreign policy led by f'n Rudy G. to try to make some equivalence between Russian interference in the election to Ukranian interference was all done to try to buttress the current POTUS' ego while at the same time trying to get dirt on a potential future opponent. A CIA whistleblower reported it to his chain of command. They did nothing. He conferred with the staff of the chair of the Intelligence Committee. They told him to get an attorney and contact the IG - you know the proper way. He did. Firestorm ensued. Then, lo and behold the White House releases the transcript to the call as a defense of the perfect call. The "partial" transcript backs up what the whistleblower said. That's why the identity of the whisteblower is a non issue now. After the phone call and the fallout how many people have resigned? I know of Bolton who told people to reach out to the lawyers because of Rudy's "drug deal". Volker resigned. Mike McKinley resinged (not the former OU linebaker). Who's next?

Then the West Point grad/Vietnam vet/Republican with more than 40 years of experience as a civil servant is the acting Ambassador to Ukraine provides receipts to the committee. I love that Pompeo is not releasing his notes as part of the State Department. I can't imagine this guy not having copies of these notes ready to provide them if necessary. I'd bet he also has screenshots of all of the encrypted app communication that they were doing. While I think the Senate will not do anything this is much worse than any action of a President in years. He held up military aid to assist an ally to try to get dirt on a POTENTIAL political rival. Every action he's taken since then has helped Russia, Assad and Erdrogan while strengthening ISIS and Iran. Sad.

Remember, we impeached Clinton after 5 years of investigations and not telling the truth about an affair. That's where the bar is. Your folks set it there.

 

[OUBubba]

Which was consistent with due process

What Schiff is doing now is inconsistent with due process

It's the same mother scratching thing! If Schiff were being as crappy as Gowdy he'd pick and choose which to make public and which to make private. Taylor would have been public. All Benghazi was for was to try to damage HRC that's why her 11 hour hearing was the only one that was public.

 

[OUBubba]

And I still don't see this on the main page of West Mall. Has Mark Zuckerberg infiltrated this place too?

 

[LongestHorn]

Then the West Point grad/Vietnam vet/Republican with more than 40 years of experience as a civil servant is the acting Ambassador to Ukraine provides receipts to the committee.

Company commander 82nd Airborne-Vietnam, to be more precise.

President Bonespur couldn’t hold his jockstrap.

 

[Horn6721]

Brit Hume questions Napolitano's account that the Republicans including Boehner changed the impeachment rules
Brit Hume: Former Speaker Boehner Says GOP Did Not Change Impeachment Rules
" But former Republican House Speaker John Boehner told Hume otherwise. “Unclear what my friend Andrew is talking about here, but Boehner just told me the only change he made to house rules was one allowing committee chairman/women to issue subpoenas on their authority alone, without committee votes. No changes made, he said, to rules on impeachment,” Hume tweeted."

Perhaps Nap will explain where he got his facts?

 

[horninchicago]

Brit Hume questions Napolitano's account that the Republicans including Boehner changed the impeachment rules
Brit Hume: Former Speaker Boehner Says GOP Did Not Change Impeachment Rules
" But former Republican House Speaker John Boehner told Hume otherwise. “Unclear what my friend Andrew is talking about here, but Boehner just told me the only change he made to house rules was one allowing committee chairman/women to issue subpoenas on their authority alone, without committee votes. No changes made, he said, to rules on impeachment,” Hume tweeted."

Perhaps Nap will explain where he got his facts?

It becomes more and more clear that as brilliant as he may be, Napolitano has become an anti-Trumper since he was passed over for either AG or a SCOTUS appointment and now has an axe to grind.

He never criticized Trump or said anything like what he says now until after both of those things happened. Now, like others, he appears to be trying to show how impartial he could be and what a mistake trump made.

He seems to be giving opinions that are proving to be flat out incorrect.

 

[OUBubba]

It becomes more and more clear that as brilliant as he may be, Napolitano has become an anti-Trumper since he was passed over for either AG or a SCOTUS appointment and now has an axe to grind.

He never criticized Trump or said anything like what he says now until after both of those things happened. Now, like others, he appears to be trying to show how impartial he could be and what a mistake trump made.

He seems to be giving opinions that are proving to be flat out incorrect.

So anyone who says something outside of the Trump party lines is an anti Trumper who's been jilted? Makes sense.

I see this as a 4 step process.

1. Conduct witness interviews (depositions) in private. You have people on the record but Witness A doesn't know what Witness B said so that they can't coordinate testimony. The Benghazi hearings were almost all closed.
2. Hold public committee meetings where these same witnesses are questioned. Only witnesses for the "prosecution" are utilized. Like a grand jury.
3. Hold a vote in the House based on testimony from #2.
4. If impeachment moves forward send to the Senate and then it's a true "hearing" where both sides have representation and can call witnesses.

Am I wrong?

 

[horninchicago]

So anyone who says something outside of the Trump party lines is an anti Trumper who's been jilted? Makes sense.

I see this as a 4 step process.

1. Conduct witness interviews (depositions) in private. You have people on the record but Witness A doesn't know what Witness B said so that they can't coordinate testimony. The Benghazi hearings were almost all closed.
2. Hold public committee meetings where these same witnesses are questioned. Only witnesses for the "prosecution" are utilized. Like a grand jury.
3. Hold a vote in the House based on testimony from #2.
4. If impeachment moves forward send to the Senate and then it's a true "hearing" where both sides have representation and can call witnesses.

Am I wrong?

Yes. Someone who was so pro-Trump and staunchly defended everything now suddenly does the opposite consistently. Meanwhile, now he is cited, as is every Trump person who then speaks negatively about him, by the media and liberals as suddenly credible because he is against trump. If you can't see the timing of his not being nominated for either AG or SCOTUS and then suddenly going against Trump's actions, well, I can't help you.

Go back and read through all the threads to see why, yes, you are wrong.

 

[OUBubba]

Yes. Someone who was so pro-Trump and staunchly defended everything now suddenly does the opposite consistently. Meanwhile, now he is cited, as is every Trump person who then speaks negatively about him, by the media and liberals as suddenly credible because he is against trump. If you can't see the timing of his not being nominated for either AG or SCOTUS and then suddenly going against Trump's actions, well, I can't help you.

Go back and read through all the threads to see why, yes, you are wrong.

So how's it supposed to go? Please educate me. I'm an Okie you know...

 

[horninchicago]

So how's it supposed to go? Please educate me. I'm an Okie you know...

Hold a vote, give the Republicans access, etc., you know, all the things that occurred in 1974 and 1998. But, you know all that, so it doesn't matter. I'm not trying to convince you and your liberal friends on here of anything because that's a futile effort. I'd have an easier time convincing you Switzer is a POS.

 

[Seattle Husker]

And I still don't see this on the main page of West Mall. Has Mark Zuckerberg infiltrated this place too?

That means either the thread author, mchammer, has set you to "ignore" or you've set him to ignore. At least, that's the behavior I get from Joefan's threads who has me on ignore. Once you start following a thread it comes up in your notifications though.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Hold a vote, give the Republicans access, etc., you know, all the things that occurred in 1974 and 1998. But, you know all that, so it doesn't matter. I'm not trying to convince you and your liberal friends on here of anything because that's a futile effort. I'd have an easier time convincing you Switzer is a POS.

47 Republicans who are on the committees have access to the depositions and can ask questions. The only thing they lack is the ability to issue their own subpeonas to call their own witnesses. This is the rule that Boehner changed with the backing of his party in 2015. Why did they change it? Benghazi and HRCs email investigation were occurring and the GOP didn't want the Democrats to gum up their narrative by calling witnesses favorable to their own narrative.

Britt Hume likely knows this thus is being disingenuous.

 

[Joe Fan]

Politely pointing out Lindsey Graham is back in flake mode

 

[OUBubba]

Hold a vote, give the Republicans access, etc., you know, all the things that occurred in 1974 and 1998. But, you know all that, so it doesn't matter. I'm not trying to convince you and your liberal friends on here of anything because that's a futile effort. I'd have an easier time convincing you Switzer is a POS.

Clinton impeachment timeline

We're about a month in. The Lewinsky thing flared up in approximately December 17, 1997. The House voted on impeachment December 18, 1998. So, give it some time to marinate. This will be one of those things after it is done in the light of day that the Gym Jordan's and Matt Gaetz's of the world will sit around a conference room eating pizza asking themselves "why did we want this done publicly?"

 

[OUBubba]

47 Republicans who are on the committees have access to the depositions and can ask questions. The only thing they lack is the ability to issue their own subpeonas to call their own witnesses. This is the rule that Boehner changed with the backing of his party in 2015. Why did they change it? Benghazi and HRCs email investigation were occurring and the GOP didn't want the Democrats to gum up their narrative by calling witnesses favorable to their own narrative.

Britt Hume likely knows this thus is being disingenuous.

25% of the SCIF Pizza Party participants serve on the committees who had access. Classic!

 

[Seattle Husker]

25% of the SCIF Pizza Party participants serve on the committees who had access. Classic!

 

[UTChE96]

Dems have pretty much guaranteed that no Republicans in the Senate will vote for Removal from office. The cover will easily be that the Impeachment process was non-transparent and completely partisan. I actually will be surprised if the Dems ever have a vote on impeachment because it will get killed so quickly in the Senate.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Dems have pretty much guaranteed that no Republicans in the Senate will vote for Removal from office. The cover will easily be that the Impeachment process was non-transparent and completely partisan. I actually will be surprised if the Dems ever have a vote on impeachment because it will get killed so quickly in the Senate.

It sorta depends. They're handing things terribly right now with the secrecy and leaks. If they ultimately turn over all evidence to the Judiciary Committee and let them conduct open hearings, then they're probably in the clear.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

Thank you once again for using real participants and real quotes concerning politics to strengthen your point. You're on target as usual....

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

Clinton impeachment timeline

We're about a month in. The Lewinsky thing flared up in approximately December 17, 1997. The House voted on impeachment December 18, 1998. So, give it some time to marinate. This will be one of those things after it is done in the light of day that the Gym Jordan's and Matt Gaetz's of the world will sit around a conference room eating pizza asking themselves "why did we want this done publicly?"

Clinton impeachment timeline

Was MC involved here (looking at end of paragraph)… from the link you provided:

April 12, 1999: U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright finds President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones case. Wright also orders Clinton to pay Jones "any reasonable expenses including attorneys' fees caused by his willful failure to obey this court's discovery orders," directing Jones' lawyers to submit an accounting of their expenses and fees. She also rules Clinton must reimburse the court $1,202 for the judge's travel expenses. Wright traveled to Washington at Clinton's request to preside over what she now calls "his tainted deposition." <<<<<

 

[LongestHorn]

Yeah but I read he had little experience as a diplomat.

Yeah, no. He served as ambassador for three US administrations.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Thank you once again for using real participants and real quotes concerning politics to strengthen your point. You're on target as usual....

I thought conservatives loved memes?

 

[mchammer]

Yeah, no. He served as ambassador for three US administrations.

I stand corrected. I misread something in the following article.
‘Alarming circumstances’: A distressed diplomat tells a tale of venal intrigue

 

[Joe Fan]

Did Trump know this would trigger a look at Crowdstrike?

Reminder: Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC through Perkins Coie (the same law firm that retained GPS Fusion for the DNC/Hillary) to “examine” the DNC server. This was the only analysis that claimed "Russian hackers" accessed DNC server. That report was relied on by Comey and the FBI and was also cited in Brennan’s Jan 2017 IC report.

Comey and the FBI never acquired DNC server and were never allowed to even look at it. Yet Comey willingly demurred, saying said Crowdstrike was reliable. Brennan, likewise, lifted quite a bit of vague info from that same Crowdstrike “report” for his sketchy IC report that concluded Russia hacked the election to help Trump.



Crowdstrike Dmitri Alperovitch - Co-founder and CTO of Crowdstrike

 

[LongestHorn]

I stand corrected. I misread something in the following article.
‘Alarming circumstances’: A distressed diplomat tells a tale of venal intrigue

I understand your feeble attempt to assail his credibility.

 

[mchammer]

I understand your feeble attempt to assail his credibility.

Regardless of his credibility, he isn’t in charge of policy. And, undermining the president by using 2nd hand info is chickenshit anyway you slice it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Regardless of his credibility, he isn’t in charge of policy. And, undermining the president by using 2nd info is chickenshit anyway you slice it.

He isn't in charge of policy, but he's in a position to have knowledge of policy and what was going on. After all, he was the chargé d'affaires to Ukraine. Unless something fishy is going on, why would he know less than Gordon Sondland (who actually did have no diplomatic experience prior to Trump), who was the ambassador to the EU, of which Ukraine isn't a member?

We only know what Taylor said based on self-serving leaks, so it's hard to assume anything at this point. Schiff and Pelosi are handling this about as stupidly as they can. However, if his introductory remarks hold up (meaning they are based on personal knowledge rather than speculation and aren't discredited), Trump is in trouble. It's enough to impeach. Of course, Trump will have the right to defend himself in the Senate trial both in terms of controverting evidence and arguing that his actions (whether legal or not) do not justify removal. However, we will and should reach that step.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[mchammer]

He isn't in charge of policy, but he's in a position to have knowledge of policy and what was going on. After all, he was the chargé d'affaires to Ukraine. Unless something fishy is going on, why would he know less than Gordon Sondland (who actually did have no diplomatic experience prior to Trump), who was the ambassador to the EU, of which Ukraine isn't a member?

We only know what Taylor said based on self-serving leaks, so it's hard to assume anything at this point. Schiff and Pelosi are handling this about as stupidly as they can. However, if his introductory remarks hold up (meaning they are based on personal knowledge rather than speculation and aren't discredited), Trump is in trouble. It's enough to impeach. Of course, Trump will have the right to defend himself in the Senate trial both in terms of controverting evidence and arguing that his actions (whether legal or not) do not justify removal. However, we will and should reach that step.

Taylor appears to be a deep stater.
Bill Taylor Led Ukraine Delegation for Group Advised by Hunter Biden

 

[Mr. Deez]

Taylor appears to be a deep stater.
Bill Taylor Led Ukraine Delegation for Group Advised by Hunter Biden

You do understand that this doesn't discredit anything he said, right?