• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

Page 70 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
UNCjigga said:
I gotta be honest, I’m not exactly sure why Judiciary is interviewing law scholars and not fact witnesses. We should be going after every witness/principle who refused a subpoena and continue to get the facts out in the open—not worry about whether the public understands this is a constitutional impeachment proceeding. This seems like a waste of time to me.
Click to expand...
ivwshane said:
I don’t think you are understanding the process here. An impeachment is a political process. What that means is that it’s not about crimes being committed but it’s also about explaining to the public why it’s being done.

These witnesses are explaining why it’s being done.
Click to expand...
Yeah, basically this. It's a waste of time for us because we already have the correct conclusions (that this shit was illegal and he needs to be impeached). It's for everyone else to understand why you have to impeach for his factual, cite-able behavior.
 
So what happens with the outstanding subpoenas to OMB, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, Giuliani, etc. etc.??? They just expire like farts in the wind?? Dems are rushing this thru to the Senate where they know it will die just so they can cross the Ts and dot the Is and say they did their job. But without all the evidence, we the people cannot hold Republicans accountable for failing to do their job.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Yeah, basically this. It's a waste of time for us because we already have the correct conclusions (that this shit was illegal and he needs to be impeached). It's for everyone else to understand why you have to impeach for his factual, cite-able behavior.
Click to expand...
This.
 
Last edited:
UNCjigga said:
So what happens with the outstanding subpoenas to OMB, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, Giuliani, etc. etc.??? They just expire like farts in the wind?? Dems are rushing this thru to the Senate where they know it will die just so they can cross the Ts and dot the Is and say they did their job. But without all the evidence, we the people cannot hold Republicans accountable for failing to do their job.
Click to expand...

It’s all obstruction. Another impeachable offense.
 
ivwshane said:
I don’t think you are understanding the process here. An impeachment is a political process. What that means is that it’s not about crimes being committed but it’s also about explaining to the public why it’s being done.

These witnesses are explaining why it’s being done.
Click to expand...

You mean the Constitutional & moral imperatives behind impeachment? Fuck that. Hail Trump! <insert Trump slogan here>
 
Anyone care to let turley know that trump hasn’t been impeached yet and only an inquiry has been done? He apparently doesn’t understand the process.
 
UNCjigga said:
So what happens with the outstanding subpoenas to OMB, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, Giuliani, etc. etc.??? They just expire like farts in the wind?? Dems are rushing this thru to the Senate where they know it will die just so they can cross the Ts and dot the Is and say they did their job. But without all the evidence, we the people cannot hold Republicans accountable for failing to do their job.
Click to expand...

Because it could take literally years to get them to comply with subpoenas. Trump's entire plan is to delay by any means possible and appeal everything to the Supreme Court. Even if they do that you'll see the witnesses then claim executive privilege on everything and that will send them back to court again. The House could jail these members themselves I guess if they so chose, but outside of that there's no practical way to get them to testify before the election so they decided not to play the game.

Dems played this one very, very smart.
 
UNCjigga said:
So what happens with the outstanding subpoenas to OMB, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, Giuliani, etc. etc.??? They just expire like farts in the wind?? Dems are rushing this thru to the Senate where they know it will die just so they can cross the Ts and dot the Is and say they did their job. But without all the evidence, we the people cannot hold Republicans accountable for failing to do their job.
Click to expand...

The subpoenas remain in force & the lawsuits grind forward. The evidence at hand is more than sufficient to support the charge. The evidence at hand is also sufficient to level criminal charges against Trump's co-conspirators should Dems win the election. They all knew Trump's actions wrt Ukraine were illegal while they were happening.
 
Turley:
A crime is not needed to impeach the president.
Also Turley:
The crime must meet the federal statute of a crime cited in article 1 in order to impeach the president.

Which apparently means we can never impeach a president for a crime who's definition was generated after the Constitution.
 
Republicans: This impeachment is moving WAY TOO FAST!

Also Republicans: You've been impeaching the president since 1/30/17.

It's so hard for them to square that circle.
 
Turley is a terrible person to testify for the Republicans, but he's the best they can get. When Trump says in his own releases that he's asking for a "favor" with no basis other than "I have heard" of a foreign leader he has met the definition of a crime in the law. Turley's response is that Trump's accusations must be investigated and in effect the law doesn't matter.

IANAL and I know better.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Turley:
A crime is not needed to impeach the president.
Also Turley:
The crime must meet the federal statute of a crime cited in article 1 in order to impeach the president.

Which apparently means we can never impeach a president for a crime who's definition was generated after the Constitution.
Click to expand...
What...what?

He said both
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Turley is a terrible person to testify for the Republicans, but he's the best they can get. When Trump says in his own releases that he's asking for a "favor" with no basis other than "I have heard" of a foreign leader he has met the definition of a crime in the law. Turley's response is that Trump's accusations must be investigated and in effect the law doesn't matter.

IANAL and I know better.
Click to expand...

I like how Turley says he hasn't seen sufficient evidence for a quid pro quo (as if that matters) despite the fact that the president's chief of staff said there was a quid pro quo on camera to dozens of reporters.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Turley:
A crime is not needed to impeach the president.
Also Turley:
The crime must meet the federal statute of a crime cited in article 1 in order to impeach the president.

Which apparently means we can never impeach a president for a crime who's definition was generated after the Constitution.
Click to expand...

This had been driving me mad. Geez. Respect for him has nosedived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top