• 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 102 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I listened to the "debate" in the House for a little while today. Is it possible for a Republican to talk for the full two minutes allotted without lying at least once? Two minutes isn't that long of a time but maintaining honesty for two minutes seems a bridge too far for Congressional Republicans.
 
Someone please make a meme or cartoon with the dialogue bubble, "swampswampswamp" (to be said in a southern voice similarly to Charlie browns teacher). Because that's what Republicans sound like during this impeachment vote.
 
compuwiz1 said:
I just had a hard time understanding why so many Democrats would want to jeopardize their political futures, so I said to myself, this cannot be, those people are nuts. Nah, they wouldn't really do this. I guess this is really going to play out to the stupid end. (in the end they will look stupid)
Click to expand...

I personally will never vote for anyone who does not take action when someone has violated the constitution and allow our democracy to errode even further. I can already tell you'd never vote for any democrat because they are not on your "team" so I don't think the politicians who support impeachment were ever going to get your vote anyhow.
 
I know that most/all of the banana Republican talking points trying to defend Trump against impeachment are complete bullshit. They are trying to defend the indefensible, but this one really has me scratching my head.

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oka said in his closing arguments that impeachment is a "flawed process" that has gone on "at the expense of minority rights."

Huh!? Minority rights? How the hell did he come up with that one?
 
woolfe9998 said:
I'm coming around to the position that the best thing is to vote to impeach but withhold it from the Senate unless or until McConnell agrees to reasonable terms for the trial. If he never does, then it never goes to the Senate and Trump will be impeached but not get the acquittal he wants.

Click to expand...

Yep...this is leading more public figures to say vote on Impeachment and then delay sending the Articles to the Senate until McConnell commits to a fair (and real) trial. But the downside is that McConnell might find ways to sit on the issue until an opportune time. If he does that, they have the option of throwing their hands up, saying "We tried to do this the right way, but it's clear McConnell is abusing his power," and then instead issue a House censure and be done with it.

It's frustrating that Trump is getting away with high crimes, but the best way to defeat him is at the ballot box, which may or may not be possible. But from the looks of things, not just now but really all along, as it looks now, impeachment has always been a long shot because Senate Republicans have known that there isn't enough public support for it. And that's because there's not enough public loathing for Trump across the electorate.

It's up to American voters to preserve our political system and Democracy.
 
VRAMdemon said:
I know that most/all of the banana Republican talking points trying to defend Trump against impeachment are complete bullshit. They are trying to defend the indefensible, but this one really has me scratching my head.

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oka said in his closing arguments that impeachment is a "flawed process" that has gone on "at the expense of minority rights."

Huh!? Minority rights? How the hell did he come up with that one?
Click to expand...

Is your head up your ass? No? Then you probably wouldn’t be able to understand any rationale that could possibly be provided.
 
Last edited:
Here is my favorite republicans talking point so far:

Impeachment will override the will of 63 million people.

What they fail to realize is that a president who is intent on corrupting our election process it is a failure to protect the will of ALL voters in the next election.
 
ivwshane said:
Here is my favorite republicans talking point so far:

Impeachment will override the will of 63 million people.

What they fail to realize is that a president who is intent on corrupting our election process it is a failure to protect the will of ALL voters in the next election.
Click to expand...
I always wish the next Dem who speaks after the Repub says "63 million voted for this President " would say and "66 million didn't".
 
woolfe9998 said:
I'm coming around to the position that the best thing is to vote to impeach but withhold it from the Senate unless or until McConnell agrees to reasonable terms for the trial. If he never does, then it never goes to the Senate and Trump will be impeached but not get the acquittal he wants.

Click to expand...

I very much disagree with this. If they withhold it from the senate they will just say the House knew their case was so weak they couldn’t send it to the senate. McConnell would happily pocket a non-impeachment impeachment and ignore it.

Send it to the senate, let them make a mockery of it if they want.
 
fskimospy said:
I very much disagree with this. If they withhold it from the senate they will just say the House knew their case was so weak they couldn’t send it to the senate.

Send it to the senate, let them make a mockery of it if they want.
Click to expand...

Yes that is the counter-argument, but the dems will say they can have their trial any time they agree to actually subpoena witnesses so that the actual evidence can be heard and considered.

Everyone knows how the vote in the Senate will go. The only question is what will the political impact be. The only chance of it helping is if we can get the evidence heard.
 
fskimospy said:
I very much disagree with this. If they withhold it from the senate they will just say the House knew their case was so weak they couldn’t send it to the senate. McConnell would happily pocket a non-impeachment impeachment and ignore it.

Send it to the senate, let them make a mockery of it if they want.
Click to expand...

I think most people would understand that it's because they didn't want a fair trial. Besides, they already have that talking point ever since the Democrats decided they wouldn't push separate articles relating to a federal criminal statute.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Yes that is the counter-argument, but the dems will say they can have their trial any time they agree to actually subpoena witnesses so that the actual evidence can be heard and considered.

Everyone knows how the vote in the Senate will go. The only question is what will the political impact be. The only chance of it helping is if we can get the evidence heard.
Click to expand...

I get how we are both guessing about how things would play politically but to me not referring it to the senate indicates the house lacks the courage of its convictions. I don’t think people are persuaded by process arguments.

I find this to be a flaw in lawyer twitter generally where they try to apply what works in trials for regular people to this. Tribe is an incredibly smart person but I think his blind spot is that anyone gives a shit as to how this plays in a legal sense or how it would play in a courtroom.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Yes that is the counter-argument, but the dems will say they can have their trial any time they agree to actually subpoena witnesses so that the actual evidence can be heard and considered.

Everyone knows how the vote in the Senate will go. The only question is what will the political impact be. The only chance of it helping is if we can get the evidence heard.
Click to expand...

The result is the same, trump remains in office. Let democrats get back to campaigning and the news cycle being about them. The DNC can do the dirty work and highlight republicans failure to do their job or to protect our democracy.
 
VRAMdemon said:
Yep...this is leading more public figures to say vote on Impeachment and then delay sending the Articles to the Senate until McConnell commits to a fair (and real) trial. But the downside is that McConnell might find ways to sit on the issue until an opportune time. If he does that, they have the option of throwing their hands up, saying "We tried to do this the right way, but it's clear McConnell is abusing his power," and then instead issue a House censure and be done with it.

It's frustrating that Trump is getting away with high crimes, but the best way to defeat him is at the ballot box, which may or may not be possible. But from the looks of things, not just now but really all along, as it looks now, impeachment has always been a long shot because Senate Republicans have known that there isn't enough public support for it. And that's because there's not enough public loathing for Trump across the electorate.

It's up to American voters to preserve our political system and Democracy.
Click to expand...

Impeachment and removal has never been a "long shot." It has never been a shot at all. I knew this when I decided that I agreed with purusing impeachment to begin with. The problem is that Trump was monkeying around with next year's election and hence the argument that it should all be up to the voters didn't hold any more. The point of impeachment was to let voters know that Trump was already cheating for the next election and to signal our disapproval of it.

The best thing which could come out of this is if everyone with relevant knowledge has to publicly testify. That means Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, even Lev Parnas. Trump wants his acquittal badly, we're told. Well tell him he can't have it unless or until he ponies up the witnesses. He's blocking critical evidence that the Senate and the American people need to hear.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Yes that is the counter-argument, but the dems will say they can have their trial any time they agree to actually subpoena witnesses so that the actual evidence can be heard and considered.

Everyone knows how the vote in the Senate will go. The only question is what will the political impact be. The only chance of it helping is if we can get the evidence heard.
Click to expand...
In this scenario, what happens if a judge rules on one the already outstanding witness subpoenas in the Dems favor?
 
woolfe9998 said:
I'm coming around to the position that the best thing is to vote to impeach but withhold it from the Senate unless or until McConnell agrees to reasonable terms for the trial. If he never does, then it never goes to the Senate and Trump will be impeached but not get the acquittal he wants.

Click to expand...

That's perfect. Trump the never acquitted President.
 
fskimospy said:
I find this to be a flaw in lawyer twitter generally where they try to apply what works in trials for regular people to this. Tribe is an incredibly smart person but I think his blind spot is that anyone gives a shit as to how this plays in a legal sense or how it would play in a courtroom.
Click to expand...

Yes. He was ecstatic over his influence over the watered down articles when it was painfully obvious that Republicans would exploit it by claiming that not even the Democrats believe there is a crime. But! Who else is left who is going to give a shit when those people are already buying into the BS that the articles are weak?
 
soundforbjt said:
In this scenario, what happens if a judge rules on one the already outstanding witness subpoenas in the Dems favor?
Click to expand...
As I understand things (could be wrong) the House could decide to pass impeachment to the Senate anytime they like so we could have much more come out. What I don't know if new articles can be added with a re-vote.
 
fskimospy said:
I get how we are both guessing about how things would play politically but to me not referring it to the senate indicates the house lacks the courage of its convictions. I don’t think people are persuaded by process arguments.

I find this to be a flaw in lawyer twitter generally where they try to apply what works in trials for regular people to this. Tribe is an incredibly smart person but I think his blind spot is that anyone gives a shit as to how this plays in a legal sense or how it would play in a courtroom.
Click to expand...

You may be right overall, but I wouldn't call Trump's blocking of several critical first hand witnesses in this matter a mere "process" argument. The blocking of witnesses is not only criminally obstructive. It directly impacts the substance of the evidence presented. How many people even know that Trump has blocked the witnesses with first hand knowledge of quid pro quo, while the repugs defending him are bullshitting over the witnesses who came forward having no first hand knowledge? Trump has blocked the most important witnesses from testifying. I think the strategy would be to make that fact central to why they are doing it. Don't make it about anything else. Keep it simple: we will refer the matter to the Senate when Mitch McConnell agrees to subpoena Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
As I understand things (could be wrong) the House could decide to pass impeachment to the Senate anytime they like so we could have much more come out. What I don't know if new articles can be added with a re-vote.
Click to expand...

This lawyer seems to think so

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207440469883535367

Also, this would flip Trumps switch so hard ... continuous meltdown from here on forth. Whats not to like. And all the other shit that will come out.

Fast narrow impeachment? Hell no, make it big fat and last forever.
 
woolfe9998 said:
You may be right overall, but I wouldn't call Trump's blocking of several critical first hand witnesses in this matter a mere "process" argument. The blocking of witnesses is not only criminally obstructive. It directly impacts the substance of the evidence presented. How many people even know that Trump has blocked the witnesses with first hand knowledge of quid pro quo, while the repugs defending him are bullshitting over the witnesses who came forward having no first hand knowledge? Trump has blocked the most important witnesses from testifying. I think the strategy would be to make that fact central to why they are doing it. Don't make it about anything else. Keep it simple: we will refer the matter to the Senate when Mitch McConnell agrees to subpoena Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton.
Click to expand...

The majority of Republicans want the turtle to bring in the witnesses. It's over 70% in total for all. This can't be a winning argument for them, and it overlaps significantly with their "weak articles" BS anyway.
 
soundforbjt said:
In this scenario, what happens if a judge rules on one the already outstanding witness subpoenas in the Dems favor?
Click to expand...

Then presumably they would have to come testify before the House Intel Committee who subpoenaed them, which Schiff says remains open for business. If the key witnesses can testify there, then they can send the matter over to the Senate. At that point I wouldn't care. In fact, I don't care about the trial in the Senate at all. It's for Trump and it's going to be a joke.

I just want those guys to testify for the public. And I want people like Mulvaney and Pompeo to have to choose between telling the truth or remaining loyal to Trump and facing perjury charges like Cohen and Stone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top