Reverie
Toronto Escorts

Pelosi announces House won't vote now on whether to begin impeachment inquiry

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,716
17,561
113
Can you imagine if the police could just walk into homes looking for evidence of a crime? This isn't far off.
Its very far off.

First we had a whistleblower that the DOJ tried to bury, but it came out anyways.
Then Trump released the phone conversation summary that confirmed the quid pro quo and his impeachment.

So its more like Trump's team called foul and Trump opened the door a crack and said 'yes, I did do it, but its ok 'cuz I'm the president so therefore everything I do is legal'.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,899
1,172
113
The gop can call and cross-examine witnesses during a trial in the Senate. The House is doing an investigation- criminals don’t get to determine who is allowed to investigate them, who will be interviewed, etc.
I understand it's hard to post on political forums and step back from what you hold to be true. Simple rules of fairness would tell us House Republicans should be allowed to call witnesses. It's also a bit rich to say these proceedings need to be held in secrecy. Let's put aside the leaking coming from the House Dems that clearly isn't meant to provide an objective account of the testimony. But, secrecy? Seriously??

These institutions are suppose to have continuing legacies for our democracy. We've survived bad Presidents, jerky Presidents, what have you. We'll survive Trump's Presidency too.

The House might be irreparably harmed. All because half the country was determined to try to remove a President they detest. Pelosi and Schiff have unleashed a scourge on our country that we will all soon live to regret. All for a couple percentage points in a national poll.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,288
113
LOL Shit or get off the pot already...bunch of clowns...
I agree with you; it has to be done before the election campaign kicks off. They have more than enough information and its better to go after the guy before the election rather than give him the chance to get reelected and stick us with President Pence.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,288
113
So why are House Dems selectively leaking information from the closed-door committee hearings?...
You sure they aren't coming from Trump's team? They have been pretty good at leaking things that embarrass themselves.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,716
17,561
113
I understand it's hard to post on political forums and step back from what you hold to be true. Simple rules of fairness would tell us House Republicans should be allowed to call witnesses.
The GOP will have time to do that in the trial at the senate.
That's the way the process works.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,288
113
... Simple rules of fairness ....
Since when has constitutional law been decided on childish views of fairness?

The House is doing their job (just like they did with Clinton) and Trump's defense team will have the chance to call witnesses if it goes to trial in the Senate.


p.s. The vast majority on the House, including a large number of Republicans just voted to condemn Trump's moves against the Kurds. Seems some House GOP aren't blindly backing the Pres.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,288
113
And the way things have been going, maybe Pelosi just expects Trump to explode on everyone and quit.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,899
1,172
113
Since when has constitutional law been decided on childish views of fairness?
Did you really write that? I'm sorry you're so cynical.
 

apoptygma

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2017
3,043
100
48
The house is investigating. If they feel there is enough evidence, they will vote. If that fails, its over, if it succeeds, it goes to the senate where there will be a trial and further vote.
This is miles away from using words like criminals.

Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise through due process.

Can you imagine if the police could just walk into homes looking for evidence of a crime? This isn't far off.
"Lock Her Up", right?
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,087
2,733
113
I understand it's hard to post on political forums and step back from what you hold to be true. Simple rules of fairness would tell us House Republicans should be allowed to call witnesses. It's also a bit rich to say these proceedings need to be held in secrecy. Let's put aside the leaking coming from the House Dems that clearly isn't meant to provide an objective account of the testimony. But, secrecy? Seriously??

These institutions are suppose to have continuing legacies for our democracy. We've survived bad Presidents, jerky Presidents, what have you. We'll survive Trump's Presidency too.

The House might be irreparably harmed. All because half the country was determined to try to remove a President they detest. Pelosi and Schiff have unleashed a scourge on our country that we will all soon live to regret. All for a couple percentage points in a national poll.
I agree, House Republicans should call as witnesses Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, EU Amb. Sondland, Mick Mulvaney, Rick Perry, NSC legal counsel Eisenberg, Rudy Guiliani and hs 3 detained Ukrainian/Russian nationals and anyone else involved in this conspiracy to hijack American foreign policy and national security interests in furtherance of the domestic personal and political goals of Donald Trump.

They, the "fair minded" Republicans in their efforts to provide an objective determination and accounting, should also forcefully advocate for the release of all documents from the above named individuals in relation to their conspiracy.

Have you no shame?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,716
17,561
113
Schiff says they will release transcripts of the interviews.
I would expect that they felt that the Mueller report lost some of its impact in the daily dribs and drabs of news, that they want a bigger splash before they vote.
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,087
2,733
113
I understand it's hard to post on political forums and step back from what you hold to be true. Simple rules of fairness would tell us House Republicans should be allowed to call witnesses. It's also a bit rich to say these proceedings need to be held in secrecy. Let's put aside the leaking coming from the House Dems that clearly isn't meant to provide an objective account of the testimony. But, secrecy? Seriously??

These institutions are suppose to have continuing legacies for our democracy. We've survived bad Presidents, jerky Presidents, what have you. We'll survive Trump's Presidency too.

The House might be irreparably harmed. All because half the country was determined to try to remove a President they detest. Pelosi and Schiff have unleashed a scourge on our country that we will all soon live to regret. All for a couple percentage points in a national poll.
Both Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski for the Watergate investigation and Kenneth Starr, Special Prosecutor of the Whitewater investigation, conducted their investigative work NOT "in the open" and NOT "in public". Their findings were then made "public" and used in open hearings and Senate trial.

The inquiry today is an investigation into the alleged misconduct of the President as were both the Jaworski and Starr investigations back then. Then as now, this is the investigative phase, which once again then as now, will result in making the findings "public" and used open hearings and Senate trial.

The "whining" about fairness and secrecy holds no water legally, ethically or morally.

Remember when this gets to the Senate McConnell "will stop it".

But Americans need to know the truth and Trump should come clean. That really is the only true "fairness" and "openness" that is required and needed.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,899
1,172
113
Both Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski for the Watergate investigation and Kenneth Starr, Special Prosecutor of the Whitewater investigation, conducted their investigative work NOT "in the open" and NOT "in public".
Yes, they were Special Prosecutors much like Mueller. Adam Schiff is an extremely partisan member of Congress who doesn't even chair the House Judiciary Committee.

You can try to explain away the unusual approach by the House Democrats, but it isn't the way to go about it if you are trying to persuade the American public and pull some House Republicans to vote for impeachment.
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,087
2,733
113
Yes, they were Special Prosecutors much like Mueller. Adam Schiff is an extremely partisan member of Congress who doesn't even chair the House Judiciary Committee.

You can try to explain away the unusual approach by the House Democrats, but it isn't the way to go about it if you are trying to persuade the American public and pull some House Republicans to vote for impeachment.
There are Republicans galore sitting in the committee meetings and questioning the 'witnesses'. As we have experienced when they have led the committees they were quite keen on 'leaking',albeit mostly fake information and also in fact physically running to the WH with classified information in hand.

I note the utter absence of any positive information for Trump gleaned from the investigation that these Republican committee members have made public. Nary a word, nothing, nada, zilch from them that they could point to that would absolve Trump of culpability.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,899
1,172
113
There are Republicans galore sitting in the committee meetings and questioning the 'witnesses'. As we have experienced when they have led the committees they were quite keen on 'leaking',albeit mostly fake information and also in fact physically running to the WH with classified information in hand.

I note the utter absence of any positive information for Trump gleaned from the investigation that these Republican committee members have made public. Nary a word, nothing, nada, zilch from them that they could point to that would absolve Trump of culpability.
So wouldn't having public hearings, as is customary in an impeachment process, preempt leaking? I seem to be hearing a whole lot of accounts of what is going on behind the closed doors.

As far as the utter absence of any positive information, we all know it's almost impossible to prove a negative. In that vein, the Ukrainian Government has said they never felt pressured to conduct an investigation. Furthermore, the Ukrainian government didn't even know there was a slight delay in providing the weapons. That seems a bit odd if you were really trying to squeeze the Ukrainians.

I think what will be spun out of these closed door meetings is that it's wrong to investigate your political opponent and their family's overseas dealings. While it may be unsavory, I'm not sure it rises to "high crimes and misdemeanors".

By the way, from what I understand Nunes was cleared of leaking classified information. It would seem the Press was making presumptions that led to this widely held belief.
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,087
2,733
113
So wouldn't having the hearings, as is customary in an impeachment process, preempt leaking?

As far as the utter absence of any positive information, we all know it's almost impossible to prove a negative. In that vein, the Ukrainian Government has said they never felt pressured to conduct an investigation. Furthermore, the Ukrainian government didn't even know there was a slight delay in providing the weapons. That seems a bit odd if you were really trying to squeeze the Ukrainians.

I think what will be spun out of these closed door meetings is that it's wrong to investigate your political opponent and their family's overseas dealings. While it may be unsavory, I'm not sure it rises to "high crimes and misdemeanors".

By the way, from what I understand Nunes was cleared of leaking classified information. It would seem the Press was making presumptions that led to this widely held belief.
Investigation > public disclosure of investigation > hearing if investigation warrants such > referral for trial to Senate if hearing warrants.

We know what we know and the Republicans know this as they also know when they don't know anything positive.

And yes Zelensky is going to invite investigation of himself in Ukraine for engaging in Trump's corruption .... NOT.

Nunes recused himself as chair of the committee for running to the WH with classified info and then semi-recused himself so he could still be Trump's backdoor man,
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,899
1,172
113
Nunes recused himself as chair of the committee for running to the WH with classified info and then semi-recused himself so he could still be Trump's backdoor man,
The House Ethics Committee cleared him of wrongdoing, but of course one can say it was controlled by Republicans at the time.

I believe private watchdog groups filed suit against Nunes for leaking classified information. I was unable to find anything that came of these law suits. Do you know what happened with these law suits?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts