1. #11901
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    62,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    The GOP's "friendly" witnesses turned against them. So naturally rather than admit that they'd just as soon call those unfriendly witnesses "theirs" and just claim they weren't allowed to call Hunter Biden...who has zero to do with Trump.
    Right. The only witnesses that weren't permitted to testify were about the Bidens, who had absolutely no connection to the inquiry and thus shouldn't have been called, or the whistleblower, who rightly had their anonymity protected. And had admitted they only had secondhand information, which had all been backed up by firsthand accounts from the actual witnesses; the whistleblower's relevant testimony was already on record.

  2. #11902
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    Pelosi's actions are partisan? McConnell's isn;t?
    Yeah, they are both hyper-partisan and making a joke of impeachment from opposite directions.

  3. #11903
    Quote Originally Posted by Martymark View Post
    Yeah, they are both hyper-partisan and making a joke of impeachment from opposite directions.
    Do you feel the reason for impeachment was partisan and not at all justified?
    M.A.A.A. Make America Adult Again

  4. #11904
    Quote Originally Posted by Martymark View Post
    Yeah, they are both hyper-partisan and making a joke of impeachment from opposite directions.
    Again, if this was true then Pelosi should have supported impeachment efforts since the start then, no? At least since Democrats took back the House earlier this year.

    But she didn't, because she knew there wasn't a case for it. Up until the Ukraine scandal, which has presented a pretty clear case for impeachment that grows stronger as additional information leaks out.

    I won't pretend she's totally non-partisan, because she's not. But she's actually been pretty fair overall with this process, and withholding the articles from the Senate until they figured out rules was part of a calculated political play to pressure Republicans to allow witnesses. She hasn't remotely been as partisan as McConnell, who was openly bragging about how closely they were working with the White House and how he won't be an impartial juror.

  5. #11905
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    It's amazing how out of touch you are with the reality that surrounds you. Or did you honestly not know that the GOP called witnesses in the House Impeachment?
    His/her handlers only gave him/her orders to say that Democrats denied all Republican witnesses. It doesn't matter that it is false it only matters that he/she parrots it ad-nauseam.

  6. #11906
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    As the House did.

    And?
    I think people forget that the ambassador and sondland were both GOP witnesses. The fact that they agreed with it being quid pro quo and shady is why they pretend that they were called by democrats.

  7. #11907
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    Do you feel the reason for impeachment was partisan and not at all justified?
    My opinion: To justify impeachment? No, I wouldn't consider it a "high crime". Censure would have been fine though.

  8. #11908
    Sell the office to the not-so-high bidder...
    Acquittal doesn't mean exoneration


  9. #11909
    The Insane Belize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    18,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Martymark View Post
    My opinion:
    Literally irrelevant when discussing facts.

  10. #11910
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    33,441
    DocSavage, Texasrules, and many other posters have posted,

    "wHaTeVeR hApPeNnEd To TrUmP rUsSiA cOnSpIrAcY?!?!?!?!!!!!!"

    about 100 times now.

    Each time they are given a very thorough answer about the Mueller report and what it established.

    Each time they peace out and decide to stop talking about it when they are overwhelmed by the facts.

    Each time, 10-30 pages later, they come back and ask the same question, AGAIN.

    I realize it's important for lurkers to see the truth, but I seriously don't get how people don't tire of these shenanigans. They're constantly posting conspiracy theories about Trump when doing this, which is against the forum rules, as is the thing they are doing which is explicitly against the rules, but nobody can call it out, because THAT is also against the rules, and you can report them, but no punishment is doled because "pOlItIcAl OpInIoNs"

    At this point, aren't "wHaTeVeR hApPeNnEd To TrUmP rUsSiA cOnSpIrAcY?!?!?!?!!!!!!" posts just off topic at this point? Serious question. I realize Trump's ENTIRE team having communicated heavily with Russia for aid is tangentially related to impeachment, but in the context of just straight up denying anything happened simply because Trump was not removed over it (and thus, in their minds, is completely innocent of all crimes) it feels incredibly off-topic.
    "Nazis are like cats. If they like you, it's probably because you're feeding them." -John Oliver
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    I don't care if he committed tax fraud. Scoring political victories and crushing the aspirations of your political opponents is more important than adhering to moral principles.
    Knadra finally just admitting Trumpkins care more about political victories than morals.

  11. #11911
    https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/...15352754577409

    UHHHHH.....am I reading this right? Because to me, this looks like Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, hired shady foreign nationals to spy on a US diplomat.

  12. #11912
    Among the evidence just produced by the House Intelligence Committee - a note from Parnas saying "get Zalensky to Annonce that the Biden case will be investigated" https://t.co/nswPgc1kmF
    https://twitter.com/nicholaswu12/sta...114285574?s=19

    Seems much evidence breaking tonight. 1)Parnas and get this...a background actor on The Sapronos and Congressional candidate trying to get rid of Yovanovitch.

    Also Rudy was pressing to meet Zalensky?
    “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

  13. #11913
    Quote Originally Posted by Martymark View Post
    My opinion: To justify impeachment? No, I wouldn't consider it a "high crime". Censure would have been fine though.
    "High crimes and misdemeanors" is the bar, though. While I would agree Trump's actions with Ukraine don't fit my personal definition of "high crime", it sure as Hell shoots past "misdemeanor" in seriousness.

    Here are some examples of "misdemeanors" (C+P job):

    Class A:

    Assault causing bodily injury
    Burglary
    DUI with no bodily injury
    Resisting arrest
    Perjury
    Possession of a controlled substance
    Unlawful possession of a weapon
    Violation of a restraining order

    Class B:

    Criminal trespass
    Certain types of terroristic threats
    Certain types of assault
    Indecent exposure
    Prostitution
    Graffiti
    Theft of property worth more than $50, but less than $500

    Class C:

    Disorderly conduct
    Certain types of assault
    Reckless damage or destruction
    Leaving a child unattended in a vehicle
    Criminal trespass
    Theft of property worth less than $50
    Issuing a bad check
    Falsely reporting a missing child or person

    Trump's actions are objectively worse than a significant number of the above. "Misdemeanor" is a low bar, because the President's actions are supposed to be beyond reproach.

  14. #11914
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    16,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Trump supporter =
    That first emoji doesn't belong there.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  15. #11915
    Quote Originally Posted by Drutt View Post
    "High crimes and misdemeanors" is the bar, though. While I would agree Trump's actions with Ukraine don't fit my personal definition of "high crime", it sure as Hell shoots past "misdemeanor" in seriousness.

    Here are some examples of "misdemeanors" (C+P job):

    Class A:

    Assault causing bodily injury
    Burglary
    DUI with no bodily injury
    Resisting arrest
    Perjury
    Possession of a controlled substance
    Unlawful possession of a weapon
    Violation of a restraining order

    Class B:

    Criminal trespass
    Certain types of terroristic threats
    Certain types of assault
    Indecent exposure
    Prostitution
    Graffiti
    Theft of property worth more than $50, but less than $500

    Class C:

    Disorderly conduct
    Certain types of assault
    Reckless damage or destruction
    Leaving a child unattended in a vehicle
    Criminal trespass
    Theft of property worth less than $50
    Issuing a bad check
    Falsely reporting a missing child or person

    Trump's actions are objectively worse than a significant number of the above. "Misdemeanor" is a low bar, because the President's actions are supposed to be beyond reproach.
    /facepalm The term high crimes and misdemeanors isn't about actual crimes and misdemeanors. It's about abuse of office.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    100:1 odds that he wont
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    Okay. I'll stop sharing my views.

  16. #11916
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana View Post
    How do you interpret this part?

    "Paul Manafort and aide Rick Gates, both pleaded guilty to 'conspiracy against the United States' both actively seeking to cultivate a relationship with the Russian government and willing to work with it to acquire damaging information about its political opponents. That willingness included explicitly sharing information with or soliciting information from Russian operatives.”
    What page in the Mueller report is that excerpt from?
    There are no loopholes

  17. #11917
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    What page in the Mueller report is that excerpt from?
    oh, so they shouldn't have plead guilty...
    Acquittal doesn't mean exoneration


  18. #11918
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    oh, so they shouldn't have plead guilty...
    I just can't even find the excerpt. It's a voluminous report, so I don't have every detail memorized. Looking for that passage or something similar so I can read the context and perhaps comment on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Each time they peace out and decide to stop talking about it when they are overwhelmed by the facts.
    I apologize if I can't continue a conversation straight through; I'm running inch and a half rigid conduit at an electrical substation, it sort of takes priority over arguing on Gen-OT.

    Edit: I guess this whole Mueller sidebar is way off topic, I'll probably just let it rest. Edge-, Endus, Elegiac, and others have at least acknowledged my points while offering their own, instead of just getting outraged and frustrated and name-calling like we've seen over the past few pages, so I appreciate that.
    Last edited by Dacien; 2020-01-15 at 12:32 AM.
    There are no loopholes

  19. #11919
    Quote Originally Posted by Belize View Post
    Literally irrelevant when discussing facts.
    I was responding to someone who specifically asked for my opinion. Thank you for your opinion.

  20. #11920
    Quote Originally Posted by Drutt View Post
    "High crimes and misdemeanors" is the bar, though. While I would agree Trump's actions with Ukraine don't fit my personal definition of "high crime", it sure as Hell shoots past "misdemeanor" in seriousness.

    Here are some examples of "misdemeanors" (C+P job):

    Class A:

    Assault causing bodily injury
    Burglary
    DUI with no bodily injury
    Resisting arrest
    Perjury
    Possession of a controlled substance
    Unlawful possession of a weapon
    Violation of a restraining order

    Class B:

    Criminal trespass
    Certain types of terroristic threats
    Certain types of assault
    Indecent exposure
    Prostitution
    Graffiti
    Theft of property worth more than $50, but less than $500

    Class C:

    Disorderly conduct
    Certain types of assault
    Reckless damage or destruction
    Leaving a child unattended in a vehicle
    Criminal trespass
    Theft of property worth less than $50
    Issuing a bad check
    Falsely reporting a missing child or person

    Trump's actions are objectively worse than a significant number of the above. "Misdemeanor" is a low bar, because the President's actions are supposed to be beyond reproach.

    As much as I overall hate the boring originality argument it is still ultimately important to understand that certain words like liberty weren't used/didn't mean exactly the same thing they do today. High crimes in this context is one of them.

    You and most others it appear are using the wrong definition of "high crime". A "high crime" is not something like super treason or mega murder which or extreme espionage which seems to be the go to for what people think it is. It specifically refers to crimes such as an abuse of office for personal gain particularly in a way that a normal person could not. It also includes severe violations of the public trust in how we expect an office to be faithfully carried out and there is absolutely no requirement that impeachable conduct under the "high crimes and misdemeanors standard" be an on the book crime like murder. It can also be grave/terrible conduct unfitting the office or a form of corruption that while not explicitly illegal give the public office holder a benefit that they are not owed soley because of their position.

    And there are very many actions that even if they're not technically crimes such as Trump hiding his transcripts on a secret server where they aren't normally stored like other diplomatic communications of the same to keep people from accessing them not for national security reason but for personal political reasons that may not be explicitly breaking any law but are definitely a "high crime and misdemeanor" because he's abusing his office and his ability to classify/declassify information not for the public good as he was sworn to act but for his own personal benefit.


    We ripped our system from the British for impeachment and they've always left impeachment deliberately open ended because you never knew how an abuse power could take place and relying on criminal statues was deemed a bad idea. In fact a huge chunk of the people the British Parliament impeached were for misconduct that technically wasn't criminal at all but it was a violation of the public trust by misusing their power. One man Attorney General Henry Yelvertorn was impeached basically because he was so bad at his job Parliament couldn't take it anymore.
    “Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.”
    "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others."
    Ambrose Bierce
    The Bird of Hermes Is My Name, Eating My Wings To Make Me Tame.

Posting Permissions

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