Ah, I've offended you again. Boy. You're really bothered by politically incorrect stuff, aren't you?
No problem. Consider this your safe space. I won't offend you again.
Irrelevant. In 98 Turley was acting in exactly the same role as today -- outside constitutional legal expert; a witness before the House. The only thing that has changed was the (d) <--> (r) transformation and of course, Turley's opinion. Of course today Turley did rationalize.old salt wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:20 pmIn 1998 Starr had tape of Clinton suborning perjury & witness tampering.jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:01 pmTurley sure didn't feel that way in 1998. His argument at that time was exactly the same as the democrats today. If it goes unchallenged you might as well allow the conduct of all presidents. It is total nonsense that this is some sore loser BS you keep trying to sell.old salt wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:43 pm ^^^^ Turley's also the US legal expert on BBC.Impeachment isn't a prosecution. The founders designed it this way so that the cause for removal must be so convincing that it requires bipartisan support by 2/3 of the Senate. Initiating Impeachment procedures for an offense that does not generate that level of support is an abuse of the process, whether in 1998 or 2019. That's what Turley's trying to tell you partisan zealots. The (D)'s will regret that they did this. They're weaponizing the impeachment process, making it petty partisan harassment to placate their sore loser base.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:43 amHe has no credibility. Flowery words and nomenclature can’t cover it up. It’s sad. I don’t believe Trump will be removed from office given the actions on the Senate over his term. Not sure I want to se him removed. Doesn’t mean the impeachment process should be abandoned. Old Salt’s philosophy is only prosecute if you can guarantee a conviction.seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:21 amLooks like you forgot to read the House Report. I laughed out loud when I read "this trivializes impeachment." You must've been really miffed with House Republicans in December 1998.old salt wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:17 amTrump's reasons ? Politics as usual. You don't even specify the "crime".calourie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:49 pmSalty wants to gaslight by making the impeachment proceedings being about a delay in weapons delivery as opposed to Trump's behavior in causing that delay to happen, and his reasons for so doing. The proceedings look like they will reveal the latter in fairly clear and understandable terms. I imagine the public will be paying more attention than Old Salt gives them credit for regarding this matter. Time will tell.old salt wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:33 pmI look forward to you & Schiff trying to sell this hooey to a disinterested public -- that this is an impeachable crime (& a crime is what the public thinks it needs to be). Tomorrow the law professors will put to sleep anyone who hasn't already tuned out.
Try to sell the notion that an 11 wk delay in Ukraine receiving sniper rifles is somehow endangering US national security,
when 2 years ago, we wouldn't even give them bullets. They haven't even needed to use the Javelins that Trump gave them 2 years ago.
What's that you say, doesn't have to be a crime. It's political.
If Schiff thought he could sell it as a crime, he wouldn't be gaslighting it as endangering US national security.
You guys are so sure about this ? Schiff claims he doesn't know how he'll vote yet. ..
Let us know when you've got 20 (R) votes in the Senate. ...'til then, gaslight this.
This trivializes impeachment & makes it just another political device, going forward.
The SP law required him to report to Congress.
https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles ... awsuit.pdfBandito wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:23 pmStop posting fake news. You and your kind is why Trump won and will win again. Better get readyTypical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:20 pmhttps://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles ... awsuit.pdfBandito wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:11 pmAre you one of those TDS Loons who thinks Bill Clinton isn’t a rapist and pedophile? Did you have a tingle up your leg when Obama was elected?
Are you one of those DemonKKKrats who doesn’t know that the DemonKKKrats are the party of slavery, racism, the KKK, Nazism and socialism? You suffer greatly from TDS. You better find your safe space. Trump is your President and your Daddy. Suck it.
@HouseDemocrats have thrown every accusation at @POTUS @realdonaldtrump they can conjure:
— Russian collusion
— Obstruction of justice
— Quid pro quo
— Bribery
— Witness intimidation
— High crimes and misdemeanors
— Violating the emolument’s clause
All false...what's next?
You’re so far gone idk what’s gonna happen to you when Trump wins again. Maybe all your sissy cuck friends on here will get together and have a protest and cry. Actually I think you all did that in 2016 hahahahahaa fan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:27 pmAh, I've offended you again. Boy. You're really bothered by politically incorrect stuff, aren't you?
No problem. Consider this your safe space. I won't offend you again.
From my vantage, you clearly suffer from TWiMD. Alas the bad news is, it's fatal and incurable. You most likely have less than a year to live.
Thank God we don’t have socialist medicine or is only have a few hours left!
I don't think there is anything medicine can do for you. It's sort of like HIV when it was first discovered.Bandito wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:38 pmThank God we don’t have socialist medicine or is only have a few hours left!
Simple. I'm going to enjoy even more massive tax breaks from four years of Trump. Meanwhile, dumb-as-a-tree-stump Trump voters won't be able to put food on the table, or afford even one trip to the doctor because Trump didn't bother fixing Obamacare.
Gotcha. Well your butt buddy must get around!jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:50 pmI don't think there is anything medicine can do for you. It's sort of like HIV when it was first discovered.Bandito wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:38 pmThank God we don’t have socialist medicine or is only have a few hours left!
You think we don't have State owned and operated hospitals! How cute! You're just adorable, aren't you?
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:02 pm But I agree, the Dems should slow down and just keep racking up the indictments and victories in court.
Bang the drum of obstruction over and over and over, force the documents out into the open, force these miserable blowhards to testify under oath.
If it takes time, it takes time. Grind it out. Impeachment is part political and part legal. If it were entirely legal, I would agree 100% with this approach. Take the time necessary to gather all of the relevant documents and testimony even if you have to wait months (or more) for Supreme Court rulings. But I think this approach has problems politically due to the time constraints. Until the Ukraine call, Pelosi was in the grind-it-out camp. But she changed her position after the call summary was released. I think she did so, in part, to head off a revolt from part of her caucus, but mainly because the call changed her view of the best way to proceed. Her no. 1 goal is to get Trump out of office. Until the call, she thought an impeachment by the House followed by an acquittal in the Senate would redound to Trump's benefit in 2020. After the call, she evidently concluded impeachment (even with Senate acquittal) would help the Dems beat Trump. (I think she is right, but we shall see.) If she followed the grind-it-out approach, there are no guarantees as to when the S.Ct. would rule or what evidence would be uncovered. (This evidence is largely controlled by Trump. I was always nervous about having to rely on key evidence controlled by my adversary.) And impeachment would almost certainly be stalled for months, maybe many months. She does not want to take attention away from the Democratic primaries, which assuredly would happen if impeachment were to drag on into the summer or fall of 2020. Also, I suspect she thinks (I agree) voter support for impeachment would deteriorate if there were to be a House vote and Senate trial mere months, or less, from the election.
Of course, you may just switch to criticizing the Dems for doing an impeachment during an election year (as if there's some sort of actual prohibition to enforcing the law in an election year), but that's fine, enforce the subpoenas. I don't have a problem, per se, with doing an impeachment during an election year, but I figure Pelosi's political judgment is better than mine. I also agree about the subpoenas. Enforce away, though the House's position in court may be weakened if impeachment has already concluded.
Unfortunately, I think the Dems are going to follow the (poor IMO) advice that they need to get it over with fast and get onto the election. I think that actually does a disservice to the rule of law.I hear you, and don't necessarily disagree, but while it may do a disservice to the rule of law, it may be the correct approach, politically.
But maybe one of our legal eagles can suggest why I may be missing something.
Is it that the Dems will indeed grind out subpoenas even after the impeachment is out of the House?
If so, why are they waiting on subpoenaing Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc? I have written before about my views on Bolton. I don't trust him. Conventional wisdom is that he would give testimony favorable to the Dems. I'm not so sure. He could be very helpful, but he could be a killer. I would stay away from him. Too big a risk. Same with Mulvaney and Pompeo. They would be tough witnesses to get anything helpful out of. They obviously would bend over backwards to support Trump. And they may have valid executive privilege claims. The judge who issued the recent McGahn ruling said her decision did not address any privilege issues. I think you probably would need a second round of litigation to test any privilege claims. The second round could well extend past the 2020 election. My view is that if the McGahn ruling is upheld on appeal (including any appeal to the Supreme Court), the decision will only be helpful to the Dems during a second Trump term if he wins reelection and the Dems control either the House or the Senate (or both).
Why not land those on their desks now?
I get that same feeling about Bolton. ...name, rank & serial number. Preserve his conservative & (R) bona fides.njbill wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:37 pmI have written before about my views on Bolton. I don't trust him. Conventional wisdom is that he would give testimony favorable to the Dems. I'm not so sure. He could be very helpful, but he could be a killer. I would stay away from him. Too big a risk. Same with Mulvaney and Pompeo. They would be tough witnesses to get anything helpful out of. They obviously would bend over backwards to support Trump. And they may have valid executive privilege claims.
I think you accurately describe the political calculus being considered by Pelosi, and I'd agree that this is her world, her business, her expertise...not mine. I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn last night.njbill wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:37 pm We have a different view on the correct strategy, but I'll take another crack at this. My comments are in red, below.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:02 pm But I agree, the Dems should slow down and just keep racking up the indictments and victories in court.
Bang the drum of obstruction over and over and over, force the documents out into the open, force these miserable blowhards to testify under oath.
If it takes time, it takes time. Grind it out. Impeachment is part political and part legal. If it were entirely legal, I would agree 100% with this approach. Take the time necessary to gather all of the relevant documents and testimony even if you have to wait months (or more) for Supreme Court rulings. But I think this approach has problems politically due to the time constraints. Until the Ukraine call, Pelosi was in the grind-it-out camp. But she changed her position after the call summary was released. I think she did so, in part, to head off a revolt from part of her caucus, but mainly because the call changed her view of the best way to proceed. Her no. 1 goal is to get Trump out of office. Until the call, she thought an impeachment by the House followed by an acquittal in the Senate would redound to Trump's benefit in 2020. After the call, she evidently concluded impeachment (even with Senate acquittal) would help the Dems beat Trump. (I think she is right, but we shall see.) If she followed the grind-it-out approach, there are no guarantees as to when the S.Ct. would rule or what evidence would be uncovered. (This evidence is largely controlled by Trump. I was always nervous about having to rely on key evidence controlled by my adversary.) And impeachment would almost certainly be stalled for months, maybe many months. She does not want to take attention away from the Democratic primaries, which assuredly would happen if impeachment were to drag on into the summer or fall of 2020. Also, I suspect she thinks (I agree) voter support for impeachment would deteriorate if there were to be a House vote and Senate trial mere months, or less, from the election.
Of course, you may just switch to criticizing the Dems for doing an impeachment during an election year (as if there's some sort of actual prohibition to enforcing the law in an election year), but that's fine, enforce the subpoenas. I don't have a problem, per se, with doing an impeachment during an election year, but I figure Pelosi's political judgment is better than mine. I also agree about the subpoenas. Enforce away, though the House's position in court may be weakened if impeachment has already concluded.
Unfortunately, I think the Dems are going to follow the (poor IMO) advice that they need to get it over with fast and get onto the election. I think that actually does a disservice to the rule of law.I hear you, and don't necessarily disagree, but while it may do a disservice to the rule of law, it may be the correct approach, politically.
But maybe one of our legal eagles can suggest why I may be missing something.
Is it that the Dems will indeed grind out subpoenas even after the impeachment is out of the House?
If so, why are they waiting on subpoenaing Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc? I have written before about my views on Bolton. I don't trust him. Conventional wisdom is that he would give testimony favorable to the Dems. I'm not so sure. He could be very helpful, but he could be a killer. I would stay away from him. Too big a risk. Same with Mulvaney and Pompeo. They would be tough witnesses to get anything helpful out of. They obviously would bend over backwards to support Trump. And they may have valid executive privilege claims. The judge who issued the recent McGahn ruling said her decision did not address any privilege issues. I think you probably would need a second round of litigation to test any privilege claims. The second round could well extend past the 2020 election. My view is that if the McGahn ruling is upheld on appeal (including any appeal to the Supreme Court), the decision will only be helpful to the Dems during a second Trump term if he wins reelection and the Dems control either the House or the Senate (or both).
Why not land those on their desks now?