Jump to content
Jordan Washington chats with Bobby for Burnt Ends ×

impeachment inquiry hearings thread

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexasEd
TexasEd

I voted for Trump/Against Hilary Clinton.   He should be impeached for: Extortion of a foreign government by withholding military assistance to an ally (and benefitting Russia) in exchange

Paul Wesley
Paul Wesley

I'm a couple pages back in this fast-moving thread, but I wanted to respond to this.   I'm pretty close to you in demographics, and I was also a child who echoed his parents' pro-Reagan stance, a

Tailgate
Tailgate

Unreal. Biden’s son can take home $1m a year from a Ukrainian company he knows nothing about...but our president acts like the CEO of a company with leverage in cutting deals and this shit happens?

Posted Images

Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

The house leadership is in AUSTIN right now commenting on impeachment hearings.  And we all have lives to lead; I get it.  But not one fucking surly poster bothered to head Downtown today to see how they could het engaged?   Not one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 26791

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Lobo said:

The house leadership is in AUSTIN right now commenting on impeachment hearings.  And we all have lives to lead; I get it.  But not one fucking surly poster bothered to head Downtown today to see how they could het engaged?   Not one?

If some intrepid soul sat through and took some notes, like say a reporter or even a half-assed blogger, I'll give'm a click. It's so early in the process the only real question is, " Are you in?" 

I mean that's why I pay a subscription at various places. So I don't have to attend shit like that. 

Meetings are beatings, this is known. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 30715

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/28/2019 at 12:04 AM, Bama Chick said:

Okay lawyer people and constitutional scholars-

We all know it takes a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove but does the below red circled portion mean a simple majority vote can be used to block Trump from running for re-election?

cfaac0179d4c991abb4987d3f146a7e7.jpg

Unfortunately, no.  AFTER voting to convict and removing him from office, the Senate may vote that the removed officer may never hold office again, by simple majority.  Disqualification is an incident of conviction, or may be.

Not sure where the authority for that comes from though. EDIT:  right there in Art I, s. 3, para. 7.  As far as I can tell, that hasn't happened with any of the modern impeachments.  See, e.g. Alcee Hastings, impeached federal judge and Florida Congressman.

What is that page image from?  It looks like a law casebook from the Carolina Academic Press or whoever they are now.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28595

Posted
Posted
Unfortunately, no.  AFTER voting to convict and removing him from office, the Senate may vote that the removed officer may never hold office again, by simple majority.  Disqualification is an incident of conviction, or may be.
Not sure where the authority for that comes from though. EDIT:  right there in Art I, s. 3, para. 7.  As far as I can tell, that hasn't happened with any of the modern impeachments.  See, e.g. Alcee Hastings, impeached federal judge and Florida Congressman.
What is that page image from?  It looks like a law casebook from the Carolina Academic Press or whoever they are now.


Thanks!

Not sure what source the screenshot cites - I saw it posted on Twitter and of course and wanted some better informed opinions than my own.

Whoever wrote it up should include your explanation because they left out the important part in the circled passage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Degenerate Gardner

Degenerate Gardner 4057

Posted
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

The boot lickers who are still clinging to the SS Trump need to get their mental affairs in order.  It’s going to be a rough few months fellas, might as well go ahead and start to face facts. 

Nah, they'll just change Screen Names, albeit with mixtyemotions.

Edited by Degenerate Gardner
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sachick

sachick 1189

Posted
Posted
I think the Senate doing a very pro forma "let's just get this over with an acquit" deal without hearing the evidence or at least appearing to consider the matter in a deliberate fashion would be a huge political mistake.

Cant wait to watch the Republican senators squirm as they decide if they’re gonna sell their soul for Trump or not and publicly vote to not impeach the asshole
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 88750

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I think the Senate doing a very pro forma "let's just get this over with an acquit" deal without hearing the evidence or at least appearing to consider the matter in a deliberate fashion would be a huge political mistake.

Yep, it would piss off a lot of already pissed-off people.  That helps drive up the wrong kind of voter turnout for the Rs.

It could even flip the Senate, or put the Senate on the road to being flipped in 2022.  The anger is there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23245

Posted
Posted

As everyone tries to play pundit on this, and I can’t stress this enough, no one knows where this thing is headed.  

This is completely uncharted water and Republicans are not lining up right now to defend Trump. Probably because what he did is indefensible.

We’re seeing rapid shift in public opinion on impeachment which previously was thought to be unmovable.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 103148

Posted
Posted
As everyone tries to play pundit on this, and I can’t stress this enough, no one knows where this thing is headed.  
This is completely uncharted water and Republicans are not lining up right now to defend Trump. Probably because what he did is indefensible.
We’re seeing rapid shift in public opinion on impeachment which previously was thought to be unmovable.   

You must not be listening to any republicans. I’ve heard several, all repeating the talking points in lockstep. They are all-in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23245

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


You must not be listening to any republicans. I’ve heard several, all repeating the talking points in lockstep. They are all-in.

There are a few but not many.  Jordan, Graham, Cornyn, Mccarthy. 

There are a dozen or so Republican Senators that don’t even acknowledge reading the whistleblower report. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23245

Posted
Posted (edited)

I will acknowledge it’s easier to say Trump will skate and nothing matters because it’s always like this.  However, part of the reason nothing happens is because that thinking has become so normalized.  

Nothing matters until people decide to make it matter.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 88750

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

I think they really haven't read the source documents.   If they had, McCarthy wouldn't have shat himself on 60 minutes last night.  They are going on the WH talking points alone. 

There's also the story that Fox News broke about Giuliani acting privately with a couple of others - as Wallace said to Miller, with all of the agencies Trump has at his disposal, why did he go with private individuals?

There's plenty of Republicans who are sick and tired of carrying Trump's water in Congress.  Every moment spent talking defending Trump is a moment that is helping their opponents, and it's a moment that they'd rather spend talking about themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Royal We

The Royal We 3041

Posted
Posted

I don't see how anyone can watch that McCarthy interview and think these are serious people.  What the deuce was he carrying on about voting to send our men and women off to war?  It was like Walter Sobchack making everything about 'Nam.

I was glad to see Pelley wasn't having any of it and gave him just enough rope to hang himself.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

I don't see how anyone can watch that McCarthy interview and think these are serious people.  What the deuce was he carrying on about voting to send our men and women off to war?  It was like Walter Sobchack making everything about 'Nam.

I was glad to see Pelley wasn't having any of it and gave him just enough rope to hang himself.

It was like a parody when he got all fake serious about the decision to send Americans off to war, as if that had any relevance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

On the face of it, it sounds like Mitch is serving an invitation to the House to impeach; that they will cooperate with the impeachment process if the House so desires.  However, Mitch may have just tipped his hand with the "How long we're on it is a whole different matter" remark.  If Trump is going to be formally impeached (he is), best case scenario -today- for GOP is for it happen as soon as possible.  Mitch will then weigh if they can acquit and still survive.  Chances of survival include minimizing time spent having the case prosecuted before them (and the world) and maximizing the time afterwards for people to forget/move on until the election.

If Dems take this 'invitation' as an incentive to move to impeachment faster by keeping it focused and narrow, they run the risk of not letting all the evidence coalesce around the magnitude of Trump's offenses, and increasing odds for Mitch  of survival if they go nuclear and basically trap door it in short order after taking it up.

If I were Dems, I'd use use this narrow issue of the whistleblower report and closely related matters to maintain public focus and to deepen support for impeachment, and let  public understanding marinate in that narrow focus.  It will allow more time needed to root out the wider corners of Trump abuse and criminality. 

The longer it takes formal articles to be presented, the more restricted Mitch's options become.  Dems can't wait too long, obviously, but the sweet spot for time needed to let the courts do their thing, gather evidence, and prosecute is probably a window between February to April 2020.  imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15225

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

I don't see how anyone can watch that McCarthy interview and think these are serious people.  What the deuce was he carrying on about voting to send our men and women off to war?  It was like Walter Sobchack making everything about 'Nam.

I was glad to see Pelley wasn't having any of it and gave him just enough rope to hang himself.

But he didn't.  He should have sandbagged--"Oh, did I misstate?"  "Well, would the inclusion of the word 'though' change your position?"  "Why so?  What is the significance of the word 'though'?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

On the face of it, it sounds like Mitch is serving an invitation to the House to impeach; that they will cooperate with the impeachment process if the House so desires.  However, Mitch may have just tipped his hand with the "How long we're on it is a whole different matter" remark.  If Trump is going to be formally impeached (he is), best case scenario -today- for GOP is for it happen as soon as possible.  Mitch will then weigh if they can acquit and still survive.  Chances of survival include minimizing time spent having the case prosecuted before them (and the world) and maximizing the time afterwards for people to forget/move on until the election.

If Dems take this 'invitation' as an incentive to move to impeachment faster by keeping it focused and narrow, they run the risk of not letting all the evidence coalesce around the magnitude of Trump's offenses, and increasing odds for Mitch  of survival if they go nuclear and basically trap door it in short order after taking it up.

If I were Dems, I'd use use this narrow issue of the whistleblower report and closely related matters to maintain public focus and to deepen support for impeachment, and let  public understanding marinate in that narrow focus.  It will allow more time needed to root out the wider corners of Trump abuse and criminality. 

The longer it takes formal articles to be presented, the more restricted Mitch's options become.  Dems can't wait too long, obviously, but the sweet spot for time needed to let the courts do their thing, gather evidence, and prosecute is probably a window between February to April 2020.  imo.

they won't move fast on this.  they will publicly flog Trump as long as possible because they know that as soon as they say 'guilty' it is out of their hands and the senate gets to work at making it disappear.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
deech

deech 2222

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There are a few but not many.  Jordan, Graham, Cornyn, Mccarthy. 

There are a dozen or so Republican Senators that don’t even acknowledge reading the whistleblower report. 

Thank god we can rely on these dozen or so stalwarts to defend the integrity of our Democracy when they actually get around to reading the report or the summary of the conversation..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 103148

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Mitch will then weigh if they can acquit and still survive.  Chances of survival include minimizing time spent having the case prosecuted before them (and the world) and maximizing the time afterwards for people to forget/move on until the election.

I actually have a procedural question about this -- once the Senate submits to a trial, I think Mitch loses a fair bit of control.  Chief Justice Roberts would preside over the trial.  Now, there are some things that the membership can demand that they vote on -- e.g., after Roberts rules on a question of evidence, they could demand a vote on it, and could overrule him.  But, putting themselves in a position to overrule the CJ of the SCOTUS on questions of evidence and law is some treacherous ground that I don't think they'll be too eager to tread upon.

I'm sure there's more to it, but at least in a case of trial of the president, the Majority Leader does surrender some power.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 44919

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

I don't see how anyone can watch that McCarthy interview and think these are serious people.  What the deuce was he carrying on about voting to send our men and women off to war?  It was like Walter Sobchack making everything about 'Nam.

I was glad to see Pelley wasn't having any of it and gave him just enough rope to hang himself.

733ae956-1fa4-4974-a546-aafc7624dd9a_tex

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sachick

sachick 1189

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I think they really haven't read the source documents.   If they had, McCarthy wouldn't have shat himself on 60 minutes last night.  They are going on the WH talking points alone. 

Of course they haven't. plausible deniability

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...