1. #5021
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    They’re still gathering evidence.
    If they haven't seen all the evidence yet then how can they have enough votes? Sounds like those votes have an agenda.
    There is blood on the path I walk.


    Put a stop to the Democrat cabal.

  2. #5022
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    Then what is the hold up?
    Why are you in such a hurry? A deliberate and thorough review of all evidence and testimony should be welcomed. You would still complain if they had the vote early and call it a rush to judgment. I rather have everyone get their ducks in a row and make sure all I's are dotted and T's crossed to make sure this is seen as a serious and important collection of facts. Once everything is on the table, then we can bring it up for a vote.

    But, apparently some people are scared of facts or the search for facts.

  3. #5023
    Quote Originally Posted by the game View Post
    If they haven't seen all the evidence yet then how can they have enough votes? Sounds like those votes have an agenda.
    Or what they’ve seen is enough for them. They still want to have as much evidence as they can gather before sending it to the Senate. It’s almost like you lot don’t get how investigations and trials work.

  4. #5024
    Merely a Setback Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    26,687
    Quote Originally Posted by the game View Post
    If they haven't seen all the evidence yet then how can they have enough votes?
    Just because you have someone dead to rights for one murder, doesn't mean you fail to investigate and prosecute for the other five they're suspected of.

    Simply put, most Democrats will impeach based on what we have already in public: multiple witnesses saying Trump extorted a foreign country to attack a political rival. Most Republicans are still claiming there's not enough evidence, hiding behind such things as "hearsay" or "the multiple witnesses are all somehow biased" or "he appoints judges and I can't get re-elected without him". Stronger evidence, which is being gathered, will dismantle those excuses. Or, equally useful, when the subpoenas to get that evidence are blocked, that's obstruction, which in turn is criminal, and that will require Republicans to invent new excuses.

    It's not really about an "agenda". "Trump didn't do it" is no longer the excuse, "Trump didn't mean it" is also gone, it's "we have to adhere to the process" now. You don't need an "agenda" to prosecute someone who broke the law. You need to do your job.

  5. #5025
    Quote Originally Posted by draynay View Post
    Why are you afraid of the investigation?
    I'm not, but if they have the votes, why don't they do it?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    They’re still gathering evidence.
    But if they have the votes why wait?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Redwyrm View Post
    Why are you in such a hurry? A deliberate and thorough review of all evidence and testimony should be welcomed. You would still complain if they had the vote early and call it a rush to judgment. I rather have everyone get their ducks in a row and make sure all I's are dotted and T's crossed to make sure this is seen as a serious and important collection of facts. Once everything is on the table, then we can bring it up for a vote.

    But, apparently some people are scared of facts or the search for facts.
    Not scared of anything, it's no skin off my back if he gets impeached I just want to know if they have the votes to impeach as was stated, then why are they holding it up, if they have the votes then that means they already feel they have enough evidence. To have the votes without evidence, well that would be something wouldn't it?

  6. #5026
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    I'm not, but if they have the votes, why don't they do it?

    - - - Updated - - -



    But if they have the votes why wait?
    I told you why. The investigation isn’t competed yet. After it is, which will include public hearings, they’ll hold the vote and pass it to the senate for trial. Why do you want them to rush the process?

  7. #5027
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    I told you why. The investigation isn’t competed yet. After it is, which will include public hearings, they’ll hold the vote and pass it to the senate for trial. Why do you want them to rush the process?
    To get it over with, do you want it to drag out?

  8. #5028
    The Insane Belize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    19,183
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    To get it over with, do you want it to drag out?
    Why do you not want justice to be served appropriately?

    Being a WoKe InDePeNdEnT, I would think you would be happy to see Congress doing their job, and conducting a thorough investigation of well supported claims of corruption and abuse of power by the Office of the President.

    So why don't you?

  9. #5029
    Quote Originally Posted by Belize View Post
    Why do you not want justice to be served appropriately?

    Being a WoKe InDePeNdEnT, I would think you would be happy to see Congress doing their job, and conducting a thorough investigation of well supported claims of corruption and abuse of power by the Office of the President.

    So why don't you?
    The question revolves around the statement "they already have the votes", if they already have the votes then that means they already have the evidence they need, no?

  10. #5030
    Apparently the Freedom Caucus charged the SCIF yelling about transparency and process.
    They also had their electronics and those needed to be confiscated.

    Also Senator John Thune on all the reporting and the opening statement - "The picture is not a good one"

    Are those cracks I see?

  11. #5031
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    63,474
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    The question revolves around the statement "they already have the votes", if they already have the votes then that means they already have the evidence they need, no?
    No.

    This argument you're making is fundamentally irrational. Investigations flatly do not work like that. You don't find "enough evidence to convict", you find "all the evidence you can, and if this leads you to potential new offenses, you investigate those as well".

    You're deliberately misrepresenting really fucking basic concepts.

  12. #5032
    Merely a Setback Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    26,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    you find "all the evidence you can, and if this leads you to potential new offenses, you investigate those as well".
    For example, Whitewater -> Lewinski. That's literally the last impeachment inquiry we had.

  13. #5033
    ICYMI -

  14. #5034
    Merely a Setback Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    26,687
    Quote Originally Posted by kaelleria View Post
    Apparently the Freedom Caucus charged the SCIF yelling about transparency and process.
    Sorry, are you talking about the closed-door hearings?

  15. #5035
    The Insane Belize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    19,183
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    The question revolves around the statement "they already have the votes", if they already have the votes then that means they already have the evidence they need, no?
    For the same reason that the police conducts a formal investigation even though they may have conclusive evidence. To form a bulletproof case to bring in front of a jury (the Senate).

    I'm disappointed that you're so against due process. It really puts a dent in your claims to be an independent in favor of law and order.

  16. #5036
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    No.

    This argument you're making is fundamentally irrational. Investigations flatly do not work like that. You don't find "enough evidence to convict", you find "all the evidence you can, and if this leads you to potential new offenses, you investigate those as well".

    You're deliberately misrepresenting really fucking basic concepts.
    I was told they already have the votes, how am I misrepresenting that? If they have the votes then they have the evidence, or do you say they have the votes before they have the evidence? which is it, it can only be one or the other.

  17. #5037
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    You actually think that Pence isn't caught up in this? Because as far as I am concerned, he should absolutely be going down with him. Considering that he was meeting with Zelensky at the order of Trump several times, like at the G20 I think it was. I mean, we got Trump, Pence, Barr, Pompeo, Guiliani, Guiliani's 4 associates or clients whatever you want to call them, and I think a few others.
    President Pelosi anyone?

    Seriously as @Skroe stated the Democrats are the most spineless, organism on this planet, especially their leaders Pelosi and Schumer.

    If we get to this point and let's say the Republicans make a deal, the deal would be Pence serves out the term. So again in a worst or some would say best case scenario, Pence is just as guilty. The spineless Dems will give Pence a pass.

    A lot conjecture here, so more of a comment on Dems in this process.
    “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States…. [It is] nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

    -Isaac Asimov

  18. #5038
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    63,474
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    I was told they already have the votes, how am I misrepresenting that?
    By claiming that "having the votes" means the investigation should be over.

    That's a bullshit misrepresentation of procedure, and I don't believe for one second you actually believe that nonsense.

    If they have the votes then they have the evidence, or do you say they have the votes before they have the evidence? which is it, it can only be one or the other.
    This already got answered. So I'll repeat.

    Just because you've got someone dead to rights on one murder, you keep investigating the details of the other 5 you still suspect them of committing.

    They have enough evidence to vote to impeach. They do not have all the evidence, so the investigation continues. Because impeachment isn't the end of the process. It's the first step. There's criminal investigations and charges that come afterward.

    You're just lying about basic concepts and procedure. No investigation halts itself halfway and says "okay, that's enough".

  19. #5039
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    I was told they already have the votes, how am I misrepresenting that? If they have the votes then they have the evidence, or do you say they have the votes before they have the evidence? which is it, it can only be one or the other.
    Breccia already answered you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Just because you have someone dead to rights for one murder, doesn't mean you fail to investigate and prosecute for the other five they're suspected of.
    You can have evidence of one crime, and still gather evidence for others.

    It's not a hard concept to grasp, you're honestly just trolling at this point.

  20. #5040
    Just ignore zenkai at this point. He is repeating the same tired lines and is not posting for discussion purposes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •