- 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 10/26/19 at 12:41 am to davyjones
Posted on 10/26/19 at 12:41 am to davyjones
quote:I mean a group of GOP Congressman storming a meeting to protest their inability to participate in the meetings, and to find out, a bunch of those Congressman were able to participate and had done so already.
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.
Doesn’t that dishonest charade make you question the veracity of their claims? And couldn’t that dishonesty just as easily cause someone uninformed to call a Senator and ask them not to support removal?
Why are we believing anything these goofballs on either side are telling us that is happening when they’re all showing such obvious dishonesty? Worse yet, why do we believe one and not the other?
2
Posted on 10/26/19 at 12:49 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
I mean a group of GOP Congressman storming a meeting to protest their inability to participate in the meetings, and to find out, a bunch of those Congressman were able to participate and had done so already.
Doesn’t that dishonest charade make you question the veracity of their claims? And couldn’t that dishonesty just as easily cause someone uninformed to call a Senator and ask them not to support removal?
Why are we believing anything these goofballs on either side are telling us that is happening when they’re all showing such obvious dishonesty? Worse yet, why do we believe one and not the other?
Believe in the US Constitution, and in the law. Educate yourself. They are ratified by the majority vote, regardless of political bias. They do in fact exist, regardless of what someone who is politically biased tells you, and the politicians do in fact have to abide by them.
There is NO Constitutional ruling that says the meetings and process of the inquiry should be done in public. The public phase comes during the trial, held by the Senate. That is the time where the defendant's (Trump's) side gets to cross-examine, present their own evidence, and character-attack the witnesses, which most definitely we all know they will.
What the Repubs in the House are doing, is nothing more than political party grandstanding, and political theatrics. Because right now, that's ALL they can do - it's the Democrats' House...
This post was edited on 10/26/19 at 12:50 am
Posted on 10/26/19 at 12:52 am to ConwayGamecock
While that is true, what to me is unacceptable is the selective leaking
Why release opening statements but not lines of questioning that might contextualize the opening statements?
Either keep it all secret or release it all
Why release opening statements but not lines of questioning that might contextualize the opening statements?
Either keep it all secret or release it all
Posted on 10/26/19 at 12:55 am to buckeye_vol
I cant argue with any of that, really. I don't think that anything's out of the question anymore. Anything short of the supernatural. And that's subject to change.
But I do think there's barely, maybe enough to believe that the Repubs arent able to call their own witnesses, and Id like to think they not being afforded equal time on the clock to cross examine the witnesses who have been called. Or cross examine at all? Hell I don't know. One thing's for sure....the Dems have set it up to where their case will be fully developed, to the extent possible, while the Repubs will have to make the best of it with the Dems' witnesses.
Whether the Repubs are taking advantage of everything they can, and whether they're being up front with their situation, just don't know.
But I do think there's barely, maybe enough to believe that the Repubs arent able to call their own witnesses, and Id like to think they not being afforded equal time on the clock to cross examine the witnesses who have been called. Or cross examine at all? Hell I don't know. One thing's for sure....the Dems have set it up to where their case will be fully developed, to the extent possible, while the Repubs will have to make the best of it with the Dems' witnesses.
Whether the Repubs are taking advantage of everything they can, and whether they're being up front with their situation, just don't know.
Posted on 10/26/19 at 12:56 am to DyeHardDylan
quote:
If it drags on, people will get tired of it like they did the Russian investigation.
Earth to DyeHardDylan the courts just dropped the whole of Mueller's grand jury evidence into the House Judiciary Committee's lap just today (including redactions) . Judge went with what Bob's report stated, it's up to them guys, not me (nor Bill Barr) to decide where the line's drawn on determining proper/improper Presidential conduct, it's a Congressional thing.
hint: Fake news it's not your friend no matter from which side and you must read between the lines for yourself.
Posted on 10/26/19 at 12:57 am to ApexTiger
quote:
liberal friends are arguing this point...
"Republicans did it to Clinton"
There were some closed door depositions.. AFTER a vote to open proceedings. Committee members were all there. Majority and minority chairs had equal subpoena powers. There was no one sided shite like this, and the vote was public.
Posted on 10/26/19 at 12:57 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
My theory on that (selective leaking) is they're giving cover to their members in districts that arent necessarily solid blue, so those members can go home to town halls and say "Did yall hear this or that? Ive surely got to vote for impeachment now."
This post was edited on 10/26/19 at 12:59 am
Posted on 10/26/19 at 12:57 am to awestruck
quote:
Earth to DyeHardDylan the courts just dropped the whole of Mueller's grand jury evidence into the House Judiciary Committee's lap just today (including redactions) . Judge went with what Bob's report stated, it's up to them guys, not me (nor Bill Barr) to decide where the line's drawn on determining proper/improper Presidential conduct, it's a Congressional thing.
Educate yourself....this ruling is going straight to DC appeals
Posted on 10/26/19 at 1:00 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
...this ruling is going straight to DC appeals
bears repeating
quote:
Educate yourself.
no one said anything different
Posted on 10/26/19 at 1:01 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:Well I would argue that the opening statement is the only piece of information without the potential of being directly influenced by one of the political hacks in the meeting. Not to mention, lines of questioning are far easier to manipulate with selective releasing, and far more likely to cause confusion even if not intended.
Why release opening statements but not lines of questioning that might contextualize the opening statements?
This post was edited on 10/26/19 at 1:02 am
Posted on 10/26/19 at 1:10 am to buckeye_vol
The composition of the opening statement could be influenced in various ways, including but not limited to collaboration.
Posted on 10/26/19 at 1:17 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
While that is true, what to me is unacceptable is the selective leaking
Why release opening statements but not lines of questioning that might contextualize the opening statements?
Either keep it all secret or release it all
If you go by the politically biased repub "news" websites - and the threads started here by the politically biased repub Trumptards, who refer to them, there is a TON of Republican-slanted selective leaking being done as well.....
Posted on 10/26/19 at 1:25 am to ConwayGamecock
To begin with, it's kind of difficult to understand why people are getting caught up in the details anyway.
Bottom line is whether Trump sought political dirt in return. His words say otherwise. Unless there's credible evidence that shows his plain words to be a lie, and instead proves political dirt in its place, there's nowhere to go with it.....and there isnt a damn thing there. Basically the only thing that can do that is an admission from Trump saying "I really meant I wanted political oppo research". And that doesnt exist. Game over. Impeachment could and should take 10 minutes in each chamber.
Bottom line is whether Trump sought political dirt in return. His words say otherwise. Unless there's credible evidence that shows his plain words to be a lie, and instead proves political dirt in its place, there's nowhere to go with it.....and there isnt a damn thing there. Basically the only thing that can do that is an admission from Trump saying "I really meant I wanted political oppo research". And that doesnt exist. Game over. Impeachment could and should take 10 minutes in each chamber.
This post was edited on 10/26/19 at 1:26 am
Posted on 10/26/19 at 1:26 am to ConwayGamecock
Ha, the difference in seeing no evil and hearing no evil, is unfortunately not always speaking no evil.
Posted on 10/26/19 at 4:54 am to davyjones
quote:
To begin with, it's kind of difficult to understand why people are getting caught up in the details anyway.
Bottom line is whether Trump sought political dirt in return. His words say otherwise. Unless there's credible evidence that shows his plain words to be a lie, and instead proves political dirt in its place, there's nowhere to go with it.....and there isnt a damn thing there. Basically the only thing that can do that is an admission from Trump saying "I really meant I wanted political oppo research". And that doesnt exist. Game over. Impeachment could and should take 10 minutes in each chamber.
Sometimes those details can paint a pretty picture, if there's enough of them. Trump doesn't have to come right out and admit that yes, he expected Ukraine to knock out all of his political rivals for military aid. Not if he pushed an agenda in foreign policy regarding the Ukraine, where he had numerous career foreign US diplomats working on his behalf to assist in that agenda, and those diplomats spill the beans.
Again, this is all the evidence gathering phase. We're all going to get our "tell it to the people!" trial, in very short order. Then everyone will know, and not have to politically posture anymore....
Posted on 10/26/19 at 5:17 am to ConwayGamecock
No matter which way you cut it Democrats are going to come to a gap, a deep crevasse, separating Trump's actual words....and....the assertion that his real intent was personal gain.
How are they going to bridge that gap? We've got no admission from Trump. We do have a couple or so people who have testified as to what they think Trump truly expected, they've taken his plain and unambiguous words and offered their own alternative interpretation of them. But does that bridge the gap? "Yeah, he said A, but he really meant B." Would 20 people offering their exact same beliefs and interpretations do the trick? It's all simply opinion, personal belief, personal interpretation, and speculation. In any halfway normal world those things dont and cant bridge that gap, not even close.
ETA...and Trump's explanation and actions, as they stand without twisting or alternate interpretation, they were perfectly acceptable and in line with same or similar arrangements that we've entered into with countless countries for countless years. Nothing off about his arrangement if it's exactly as he stated it.
How are they going to bridge that gap? We've got no admission from Trump. We do have a couple or so people who have testified as to what they think Trump truly expected, they've taken his plain and unambiguous words and offered their own alternative interpretation of them. But does that bridge the gap? "Yeah, he said A, but he really meant B." Would 20 people offering their exact same beliefs and interpretations do the trick? It's all simply opinion, personal belief, personal interpretation, and speculation. In any halfway normal world those things dont and cant bridge that gap, not even close.
ETA...and Trump's explanation and actions, as they stand without twisting or alternate interpretation, they were perfectly acceptable and in line with same or similar arrangements that we've entered into with countless countries for countless years. Nothing off about his arrangement if it's exactly as he stated it.
This post was edited on 10/26/19 at 5:22 am
Posted on 10/26/19 at 5:22 am to davyjones
This is all bullshite. There will be no vote until after the election if at all ,and by then it won’t matter.
Posted on 10/26/19 at 5:25 am to Janky
Hell, why worry with a vote when they're all pumping the conclusion or "verdict" into the public sphere without abandon. They announce their opinions and speculation to every camera they see, every time they see them. It's quite irresponsible. And childish. The folks see through it though.
**And I share the same opinion as far as the strong possibility of there never being a vote. In fact, if Nadler doesnt find what he hopes to find in the new info they likely eventually get, in an effort to shore up this weak, weak Uk case....they fold. And we already know there will be nothing new that's suddenly rises to impeachment level in any such info. It makes no sense.
**And I share the same opinion as far as the strong possibility of there never being a vote. In fact, if Nadler doesnt find what he hopes to find in the new info they likely eventually get, in an effort to shore up this weak, weak Uk case....they fold. And we already know there will be nothing new that's suddenly rises to impeachment level in any such info. It makes no sense.
This post was edited on 10/26/19 at 5:31 am
Posted on 10/26/19 at 5:30 am to davyjones
What new info? Are you talking about from the the mueller case? That will never see the light of day.
Posted on 10/26/19 at 5:33 am to Janky
I don't know, I think there's precedence for disclosing info of these descriptions. But if not....all the better. If so, I still does nothing. Does nothing either way.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News