Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

Impeachment now certain

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:37 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:
PeterZ wrote:Yup. Unlike the Republicans during the Clinton impeachment, the current Dems haven't allowed President Trump to call witnesses or have any time to prepare questions for the Dem's witnesses.
gcomeau wrote:
MORE fiction.

Clinton was never allowed to call witnesses in his impeachment hearing in the House. He was allowed to call witnesses in his impeachment TRIAL in the freaking Senate. Which Trump will also be allowed to do.

How many times does the difference between an inquiry and a trial need to be explained? The only person trump would want to call, just to out them in violation of the whistleblower protections, is the whistleblower. Whose testimony became irrelevant the second their complaint was corroborated.

The Republican committee members were however allowed to request witnesses, had some of their requests granted, and it just turned out people like Morrison and Volkler gave testimony that was also against Trump because you know, EVERYONE who has gone under oath has given testimony against Trump.

Not that you care.


Also, Trump has issued blanket orders that NOBODY is allowed to testify in the most egregious act of Obstruction the presidency has ever seen, so complaining he isn't allowed to call witnesses is pathetically transparent BS.

He. Doesn't. Want. ANYONE. To. Testify.

I mean who would he call Peter? Bolton? Trump won't let him.

Pompeo? Same

Mulvaney? Same.

So WHO THE HELL are you claiming Trump would be being prevented from calling anyway?

That's right. The Clinton impeachment proceedings was based on the Ken Star Independent Counsel report that gave President Clinton the full protection of due process. They collected evidence based on federal evidentiary guidelines. The House did not need to gather any more evidence. They simply voted on impeachment based on the report.

The current House has collected testimony in ways that did not afford the President due process protections.


Name one right they violated.

Chief among them was not following the federal rules of evidence.


That governs introduction of evidence AT A TRIAL. and they are specifically NOT applied during the investigation phase, it says so right in those rules.

One more time. Senate does the trial. House is doing the investigation phase. Try to get that through your skull.

Any legal challenges he has made are considered obstruction.


He hasn't MADE any legal challenges. He just ordered total non compliance. That is not a legal challenge!
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by Eyal   » Mon Dec 09, 2019 3:19 pm

Eyal
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:09 pm
Location: Israel

PeterZ wrote:
PeterZ wrote:Yup. Unlike the Republicans during the Clinton impeachment, the current Dems haven't allowed President Trump to call witnesses or have any time to prepare questions for the Dem's witnesses.
gcomeau wrote:
MORE fiction.

Clinton was never allowed to call witnesses in his impeachment hearing in the House. He was allowed to call witnesses in his impeachment TRIAL in the freaking Senate. Which Trump will also be allowed to do.

How many times does the difference between an inquiry and a trial need to be explained? The only person trump would want to call, just to out them in violation of the whistleblower protections, is the whistleblower. Whose testimony became irrelevant the second their complaint was corroborated.

The Republican committee members were however allowed to request witnesses, had some of their requests granted, and it just turned out people like Morrison and Volkler gave testimony that was also against Trump because you know, EVERYONE who has gone under oath has given testimony against Trump.

Not that you care.


Also, Trump has issued blanket orders that NOBODY is allowed to testify in the most egregious act of Obstruction the presidency has ever seen, so complaining he isn't allowed to call witnesses is pathetically transparent BS.

He. Doesn't. Want. ANYONE. To. Testify.

I mean who would he call Peter? Bolton? Trump won't let him.

Pompeo? Same

Mulvaney? Same.

So WHO THE HELL are you claiming Trump would be being prevented from calling anyway?

That's right. The Clinton impeachment proceedings was based on the Ken Star Independent Counsel report that gave President Clinton the full protection of due process. They collected evidence based on federal evidentiary guidelines. The House did not need to gather any more evidence. They simply voted on impeachment based on the report.

The current House has collected testimony in ways that did not afford the President due process protections. Chief among them was not following the federal rules of evidence. Any legal challenges he has made are considered obstruction. This is a farce that more and more people see for what it is. Calls for impeachment began hours after his inauguration. Impeachment has been a foregone conclusion looking for evidence since before the President won his election.


Canadian progressives can rant all they want, but tis farce is going to bite the Dems in the butt.


1) The evidentiary rules apply to the trial phase, which hasn't started yet.
2) Likewise in regards to the right to offer a defense.
3) In the case of Clinton, there was a lengthy special counsel investigation on the issue before hand. Are you arguing that the House should have appointed a special counsel to investigate this matter? After Trump went to considerable lengths to hamper the previous one?
4) As I understand the rules the House is currently using for the hearings were drawn up by John Boehner for the Benghazi hearings.
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by PeterZ   » Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:45 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Eyal wrote:
1) The evidentiary rules apply to the trial phase, which hasn't started yet.
2) Likewise in regards to the right to offer a defense.
3) In the case of Clinton, there was a lengthy special counsel investigation on the issue before hand. Are you arguing that the House should have appointed a special counsel to investigate this matter? After Trump went to considerable lengths to hamper the previous one?
4) As I understand the rules the House is currently using for the hearings were drawn up by John Boehner for the Benghazi hearings.

Evidentiary rules apply in a trial. Yet, impeachment is political process to remove the President based on Constitutional definitions of applicable crimes. Voting to impeach based on opinions that are inadmissible as evidence in a trial is the height of political partisanship. Let the Constitutional scholars argue if doing that is constitutional or not. The voters have come to the conclusion that such a process regardless of who developed them is pure political theater. The polls show this.
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by TFLYTSNBN   » Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:41 am

TFLYTSNBN

Eyal wrote:
PeterZ wrote:


MORE fiction.

Clinton was never allowed to call witnesses in his impeachment hearing in the House. He was allowed to call witnesses in his impeachment TRIAL in the freaking Senate. Which Trump will also be allowed to do.

How many times does the difference between an inquiry and a trial need to be explained? The only person trump would want to call, just to out them in violation of the whistleblower protections, is the whistleblower. Whose testimony became irrelevant the second their complaint was corroborated.

The Republican committee members were however allowed to request witnesses, had some of their requests granted, and it just turned out people like Morrison and Volkler gave testimony that was also against Trump because you know, EVERYONE who has gone under oath has given testimony against Trump.

Not that you care.


Also, Trump has issued blanket orders that NOBODY is allowed to testify in the most egregious act of Obstruction the presidency has ever seen, so complaining he isn't allowed to call witnesses is pathetically transparent BS.

He. Doesn't. Want. ANYONE. To. Testify.

I mean who would he call Peter? Bolton? Trump won't let him.

Pompeo? Same

Mulvaney? Same.

So WHO THE HELL are you claiming Trump would be being prevented from calling anyway?

That's right. The Clinton impeachment proceedings was based on the Ken Star Independent Counsel report that gave President Clinton the full protection of due process. They collected evidence based on federal evidentiary guidelines. The House did not need to gather any more evidence. They simply voted on impeachment based on the report.

The current House has collected testimony in ways that did not afford the President due process protections. Chief among them was not following the federal rules of evidence. Any legal challenges he has made are considered obstruction. This is a farce that more and more people see for what it is. Calls for impeachment began hours after his inauguration. Impeachment has been a foregone conclusion looking for evidence since before the President won his election.


Canadian progressives can rant all they want, but tis farce is going to bite the Dems in the butt.





Rather than impeach Clinton, the Republicans should have just published and publicised the Paula Jones affidavit concerning the "distinguishing characteristics." The revelation that even at full attention slick Willy's little willie is no thicker than the diameter of a quarter and less than five inches long would have been politically devastating. This would have destroyed his support among the woman that Rush Limbaugh referred to as the "arousal gap.". The comment that Jennifer Flowers made in her interview with Penthouse magazine would have become THE metaphor for Clinton's entire political career.
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by gcomeau   » Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:18 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:
Eyal wrote:
1) The evidentiary rules apply to the trial phase, which hasn't started yet.
2) Likewise in regards to the right to offer a defense.
3) In the case of Clinton, there was a lengthy special counsel investigation on the issue before hand. Are you arguing that the House should have appointed a special counsel to investigate this matter? After Trump went to considerable lengths to hamper the previous one?
4) As I understand the rules the House is currently using for the hearings were drawn up by John Boehner for the Benghazi hearings.

Evidentiary rules apply in a trial. Yet, impeachment is political process to remove the President based on Constitutional definitions of applicable crimes. Voting to impeach based on opinions that are inadmissible as evidence in a trial is the height of political partisanship.


Umm, no, it's just how the process works and is *supposed* to work.

The House phase is the same as a prosecutor or Grand Jury deciding whether to bring charges in an indictment. There is a REASON those rules do not apply to that phase of things.

(also, if you are deluding yourself into thinking most of these witnesses won't be able to testify in the trial because "hearsay", oh you are in for a letdown)

Let the Constitutional scholars argue if doing that is constitutional or not.


Spoiler: It is. There is no debate on that. *At all*. Not even the GOPs own Constitutional Scholar witness called to the Judiciary hearings was stupid enough to try pulling that one. The best argument he could give was that he thought they should investigate *more* and have all the people Trump was blocking from testifying testify. (Which, btw, was also him unintentionally making the argument that Trump was obstructing the investigation... an impeachable offense)

The voters have come to the conclusion that such a process regardless of who developed them is pure political theater. The polls show this.

You mean these polls?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

The ones with the "support impeachment" values bigger than the "don't support impeachment" values? Those polls?
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by Joat42   » Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:30 am

Joat42
Admiral

Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:01 am
Location: Sweden

smr wrote:Your emotional overreaction to the mention of God or ID is what I base my comments. Look at you word usage and verbage that shows that you have issues with God or ID. That indicates an incredible amount of emotional pain. For me, I have had 2 near death experiences. Those experiences have taught me that God exists. It really does not matter what you think because I have the proof in my mind of God. I do not care whether you believe or not because your salvation is your business not mine.You have some issues of anger within your soul that is clear as day or you would not be so triggered by the mention of God or ID. So be aware that you have some extreme anger issues with the mention of God and ID. This is base on your over emotional responses to these innocent posts.

You aptly demonstrate why I loathe people who constantly project their belief onto others the whole time. I don't really care what you believe, but as I said earlier, when you wave your mental crutch around as a way to prove you are right regardless of any logic, I will call it bullshit and a blight upon humanity.

As the saying goes:
Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by smr   » Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:28 pm

smr
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1522
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:18 pm

smr wrote:
Your emotional overreaction to the mention of God or ID is what I base my comments. Look at you word usage and verbage that shows that you have issues with God or ID. That indicates an incredible amount of emotional pain. For me, I have had 2 near death experiences. Those experiences have taught me that God exists. It really does not matter what you think because I have the proof in my mind of God. I do not care whether you believe or not because your salvation is your business not mine.You have some issues of anger within your soul that is clear as day or you would not be so triggered by the mention of God or ID. So be aware that you have some extreme anger issues with the mention of God and ID. This is base on your over emotional responses to these innocent posts.


You aptly demonstrate why I loathe people who constantly project their belief onto others the whole time. I don't really care what you believe, but as I said earlier, when you wave your mental crutch around as a way to prove you are right regardless of any logic, I will call it bullshit and a blight upon humanity.

As the saying goes:

Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.


Thank you for proving my point in over reacting to the mention of G O D or I D. This super sized over reaction indicates you need counseling at the mention of God or religion. Lots of counseling is needed or dare I say God is needed. That anger in you soul is extremely unhealthy and preventing you from fulfilling your destiny.

Interesting that as an individual you loathe, despise and hate people that believe in God. So that means Joat42 hates the Christians, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Jews, and the Hindus because they believe in a Divine Creator(s). Do you hate the people that believe in a Divine Creator(s)but reject organized religion? Wow, what an incredible capacity to hate. That requires so much effort to maintain within your soul. Could this behavior be blocking you from fulfilling your potential?


loathe
/lōT͟H/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: loathe; 3rd person present: loathes; past tense: loathed; past participle: loathed; gerund or present participle: loathing

feel intense dislike or disgust for.
"she loathed him on sight"

de·spise
/dəˈspīz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: despise; 3rd person present: despises; past tense: despised; past participle: despised; gerund or present participle: despising

feel contempt or a deep repugnance for.
"he despised himself for being selfish"


Cheers and God bless!

hate
/hāt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: hate; 3rd person present: hates; past tense: hated; past participle: hated; gerund or present participle: hating

feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone).
"the boys hate each other"
h
Similar:
loathe
detest
dislike greatly
abhor
abominate
despise
execrate
feel aversion toward
feel revulsion toward
feel hostile toward
be repelled by
be revolted by
regard with disgust
not be able to bear/stand
be unable to stomach
find intolerable
shudder at
recoil from
shrink from
hate someone's guts
disrelish
h
Opposite:
love
like
have a strong aversion to (something).
"he hates flying"
used politely to express one's regret or embarrassment at doing something.
"I hate to bother you"
h
Similar:
be sorry
be reluctant
be loath
be unwilling
be disinclined
regret
dislike
not like
hesitate
informal
express strong dislike for; criticize or abuse.
"I can't hate on them for trying something new"
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by Daryl   » Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:04 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

To smr.
I can't speak for Joat42, but for myself.
I try not to "hate" anyone, generally successful, but occasionally if someone does actual harm to me or mine through malice, then yes hate does peek through.
I have friends who are religious, and generally envy them. Must be nice to "know" that you will live eternally in bliss. Not available to skeptics and those who are over logical.

As someone with university level training on logic over many years in science, engineering and managership/leadership I do have difficulty in "just believing". Coupled with abuse by declared christians, and examples of hypocrisy I know I will never be a "believer".
So good luck, and be happy, but know that in technical discussions it can be difficult to respect the thinking processes of those who accept faith rather than facts.
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by smr   » Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:16 pm

smr
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1522
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:18 pm

Daryl,you are the person I was referring to that did not react when discussing God or ID. I really appreciated those discussions. I thought about what we had discussed in the forums about a variety of subjects.
[
quote="Daryl"]To smr.
I can't speak for Joat42, but for myself.
I try not to "hate" anyone, generally successful, but occasionally if someone does actual harm to me or mine through malice, then yes hate does peek through.
I have friends who are religious, and generally envy them. Must be nice to "know" that you will live eternally in bliss. Not available to skeptics and those who are over logical.

As someone with university level training on logic over many years in science, engineering and managership/leadership I do have difficulty in "just believing". Coupled with abuse by declared christians, and examples of hypocrisy I know I will never be a "believer".
So good luck, and be happy, but know that in technical discussions it can be difficult to respect the thinking processes of those who accept faith rather than facts.[/quote]
Top
Re: Impeachment now certain
Post by gcomeau   » Fri Dec 13, 2019 2:23 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

So McConnell just publicly declared he's rigging the Senate trial.

The rigging was expected, brazenly announcing he was doing it on national television caught even me by surprise however.

"Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with White House Counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this."


He just literally, explicitly declared that the person on trial is being given total control over how the trial will be run. (At least if McConnell isn't stopped by GOP Senators who still have actual ethics... if such a thing exists anymore)
Top

Return to Politics