- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Did republicans hold closed door meetings impeaching Clinton?
Posted on 10/25/19 at 5:41 pm to DeathAndTaxes
Posted on 10/25/19 at 5:41 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
Outside and Preliminary Investigations"
and were both parties part of the process, yes or no?
1
Posted on 10/25/19 at 5:52 pm to ApexTiger
Yes?
Posted on 10/25/19 at 5:57 pm to PhDoogan
The Senate created the Select committee to investigate Watergate a full year before anything was voted on in the House. And I can’t find an exact date, but investigations and depositions were held before appointing Ken Starr, which would obviously predate any resolution.
Clinton is muddy because Whitewater bled into Jones bled into Lewinsky.
Clinton is muddy because Whitewater bled into Jones bled into Lewinsky.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 6:06 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
Jones bled into Lewinsky.
gross...
Posted on 10/25/19 at 6:07 pm to chRxis
Indeed.
Edit: Haha, my one word comment gets downvoted. Classic
Edit: Haha, my one word comment gets downvoted. Classic
This post was edited on 10/25/19 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 10/25/19 at 6:11 pm to ApexTiger
Some testimony was provided in closed hearings.
Clinton's lawyer was present.
Minority (Dems) had equal ability to ask questions.
Clinton's lawyer was present.
Minority (Dems) had equal ability to ask questions.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 6:49 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
"Outside and Preliminary Investigations"
Are not what is going on today so I am not sure what your point is except to willfully muddy the water.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 7:05 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:I didn't downvote, but I do have issues with that one word. It's a long, emotional story that I'm not ready to talk about yet. Maybe one day.
Indeed.
Edit: Haha, my one word comment gets downvoted. Classic
Posted on 10/25/19 at 7:07 pm to ApexTiger
No!
Posted on 10/25/19 at 7:07 pm to ApexTiger
No
Posted on 10/25/19 at 7:19 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
Look man, someone asked a sincere question, I gave a sincere answer.
You can take your bullshite somewhere else.
You can take your bullshite somewhere else.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 7:25 pm to ApexTiger
Well, the Clinton inquiry was actually a legitimate inquiry because it was started with a vote, getting all members on record. It took over 200 days after the revelations of possible wrongdoing for the House to start an inquiry. For Nixon, it took over 500 days before the House started an inquiry. This inquiry started without a vote, 11 days after the whistleblower complaint, before anyone had even seen the transcript of the phone call. The goal of House Democrats is transparent - do whatever possible, subvert traditional norms and due process, to damage this President as much as possible. They began talking about impeachment even before he got elected. The best strategy for Republicans right now is to try and stall this as much as possible. If it drags on, people will get tired of it like they did the Russian investigation.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 7:30 pm to DyeHardDylan
So, legitimate question here, what was Congress doing in the 200 and 500 day periods before those votes?
Posted on 10/25/19 at 7:31 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
So, legitimate question here, what was Congress doing in the 200 and 500 day periods before those votes?
Probably debating and passing legislation, which may be a shocking and novel idea for this House. Back in the 90s and certainly in the 70s, there wasn’t near as much animosity from an opposition party towards a sitting President, even though they disagreed.
This post was edited on 10/25/19 at 7:35 pm
Posted on 10/25/19 at 8:15 pm to IrishTiger89
quote:I read somewhere that over 100 individuals were interviewed, and Hillary was the only one to have a public one.
Didn’t they hold like 60 closed door meetings concerning Clinton/Benghazi
Regardless, actual impeachment investigations, especially involving the President, are extremely rare. So it seems odd to argue what the “norms” are of a process that is extremely rare and abnormal on top of the fact it’s a political process at that.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 8:19 pm to DyeHardDylan
quote:That sounds like Ds complaining about the lack of legislation by the GOP from 2010-2016.
Probably debating and passing legislation, which may be a shocking and novel idea for this House.
But whether you are for or against an inquiry, I think people should be happy they aren’t legislating at least. And that’s true for any reason that stops them from meddling in the rest our lives. This is a mere nuisance for Trump compared to what they normally do to us when they’re legislating.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 9:31 pm to buckeye_vol
The minimization and dismissiveness of the Republicans' complaints about their very restricted ability to fully participate in the closed door interviews and related proceedings, here's where I'd say those minimizing and being dismissive are being either utterly obtuse, or utterly unscrupulous....maybe I'm wrong:
There would be public hearings/debate on any impeachment resolution(s) submitted to full House floor, vote subsequent thereto. We know that.
But if Republicans haven't been afforded an equal opportunity to gather information and evidence that they believe would best support their case in opposition, how has it been anywhere near a fair process at that point? Dems have had free reign to prepare their case, as we know.
There would be public hearings/debate on any impeachment resolution(s) submitted to full House floor, vote subsequent thereto. We know that.
But if Republicans haven't been afforded an equal opportunity to gather information and evidence that they believe would best support their case in opposition, how has it been anywhere near a fair process at that point? Dems have had free reign to prepare their case, as we know.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 9:36 pm to davyjones
Republican Mark Meadows, who sits on Foreign Affairs and Oversight, has refuted the characterization that Republicans are not given equal time to examine witnesses.
Regarding the inability to call witnesses, well, you got me there. Themes the rules, don’t mean it is right.
Regarding the inability to call witnesses, well, you got me there. Themes the rules, don’t mean it is right.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 9:46 pm to DeathAndTaxes
If and when there's debate and vote, at that stage it's a foregone conclusion that it's moving forward to the Senate. So an incomplete effort in terms of convincing members isn't really even an issue. But what is a big issue, and where Trump reveives measurable damage is in the public's observation and the resulting perception. You may have constituents who being uninformed will communicate to their Senators support for impeachment/removal that may well have been the other way around had the Republicans been afforded the opportunity and ability to present an independent case.
Posted on 10/25/19 at 9:51 pm to Sidicous
quote:
Perjury is an actual crime so no manipulation by hook and crook was needed.
Plus there is no question he encouraged Lewinsky to lie under oath - suborning perjury and, during an active investigation, probably obstruction of justice. I say probably, because whether it is a civil or criminal matter might make the difference between that being a crime.
Regardless, real, legitimate wrongdoing was pursued against Clinton, not any of the stuff they have made up about Trump.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News