Trump whistleblower brewing scandal

RecoveringYuppy said:
I'm confused, I thought the Senate rules considered it mandatory to vote in secret for impeachments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_sessions_of_the_United_States_Senate
Click to expand...

The Senate can change the rules at any time. So what are rules for one Senate may be different than in another.

In the Bill Clinton impeachment the deliberations of the Senate trial were held in Secret but after they emerged from those deliberations they held a roll call vote.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Verdict


The Andrew Johnson impeachment also had a roll call vote.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Verdict
 
Belz... said:
You're the one who said you wouldn't mind making an exception. I'm bringing up possible consequences. Do you have a response to that?
Click to expand...

My point is the GOP has been making exceptions since Nixon where the rules are only for the other guys. Could there be unforeseen consequences? Absolutely, but maybe those consequences could be tightening of the rules and increased transparency across the board. Maybe what is required is a dose of their own medicine.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
So apparently deliberations doesn't include the vote in current interpretation of the rules.
Click to expand...

Can you clarify your question? I haven't looked to see what the Senate has done in all impeachment trials, just the two Presidential impeachments.

From my understanding. The Senate votes on a set of rules every two years on the rules of the body. Usually there are few if any changes. But a majority of the Senate can amend the rules at any time. It's very probable the Senate could establish new rules for an Impeachment trial of President Trump.

The deliberations are in closed session and what is discussed is between them. Could they have unofficial votes during that discussion? Sure. Will they? My guess is probably. Or at least members of their own caucus will be polled.
 
I am very literally at the point that if a friend who supported trump dies I am happy. When there is a terrible multi-vehicle accident on I-75 I only hope that more trumpists died than Americans did.

This country needs traitors’s blood.
 
autumn1971 said:
I am very literally at the point that if a friend who supported trump dies I am happy. When there is a terrible multi-vehicle accident on I-75 I only hope that more trumpists died than Americans did.

This country needs traitors’s blood.
Click to expand...

Wow! That's cold blooded.
 
Belz... said:
I think it's fair to say that people are more than simply which box they check at the elections.
Click to expand...

I think it's also fair to say that when people do certain things, they deserve to die. Murder, perhaps. Violent rape. Assorted egregious betrayals. Stuff like that. Not sure "marked a ballot for Donald Trump" should be on the list, though.
 
autumn1971 said:
I am very literally at the point that if a friend who supported trump dies I am happy. When there is a terrible multi-vehicle accident on I-75 I only hope that more trumpists died than Americans did.

This country needs traitors’s blood.
Click to expand...
I don't feel that way about them. A few on the extreme edge maybe. But I'd be content to see Trump incapacitated. Not dead, not suffering, just sidelined.
 
autumn1971 said:
I am very literally at the point that if a friend who supported trump dies I am happy.
Click to expand...
119258689896f40fe.jpg
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I think it's also fair to say that when people do certain things, they deserve to die. Murder, perhaps. Violent rape. Assorted egregious betrayals. Stuff like that. Not sure "marked a ballot for Donald Trump" should be on the list, though.
Click to expand...
You have a vested interest there.
 
theprestige said:
Instead of trying to make this about me personally, how about you just tell us what you yourself think, and why?
Click to expand...
I was only joking. I agree that the post went way too far.

Some of my best friends are Trump supporters. I confess that makes me think a little less of them, but it's only one facet.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
No more than they are.

Personally I don't wish any Trump supporters dead. I want them alive to face the consequences... at least until the civil war begins.
Click to expand...

I have no animosity towards many of Trump's supporters. Some of them are ignorant. Some of them are stupid. But that doesn't mean they should die.
 
phiwum said:
I was only joking. I agree that the post went way too far.

Some of my best friends are Trump supporters. I confess that makes me think a little less of them, but it's only one facet.
Click to expand...

That's fair.

But keep in mind: conservatives on this forum take a lot of personal abuse, day in and day out, just for speaking their mind and arguing their opinions. Stuff that plays as a friendly joke in your head, and that might read to me as a friendly joke in a different context, is being read against that backdrop, here.
 
autumn1971 said:
I am very literally at the point that if a friend who supported trump dies I am happy. When there is a terrible multi-vehicle accident on I-75 I only hope that more trumpists died than Americans did.

This country needs traitors’s blood.
Click to expand...

That's ******* crazy, and you need to do whatever you can to snap yourself out of that mental headspace.

Talk to a pro, meditate, pray, whatever.
 
theprestige said:
That's fair.

But keep in mind: conservatives on this forum take a lot of personal abuse, day in and day out, just for speaking their mind and arguing their opinions. Stuff that plays as a friendly joke in your head, and that might read to me as a friendly joke in a different context, is being read against that backdrop, here.
Click to expand...

I'd look at that complaint a lot more charitably if it came with even the occasional condemnation of Trump's regular incivility.
 
An attack on Trump is not automatically an attack on conservatives - but if they want to associate that closely to him that they are in the splash zone of him being criticized, that's their problem.
At this point, support for Trump beyond 2020 is not a valid position, for Conservatives or anyone else. The only thing we can argue about is how quickly he has to go.
 
theprestige said:
But keep in mind: conservatives on this forum take a lot of personal abuse, day in and day out, just for speaking their mind and arguing their opinions. Stuff that plays as a friendly joke in your head, and that might read to me as a friendly joke in a different context, is being read against that backdrop, here.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a partisan thing. There are people from both sides who like to throw insults regularly, and I think the majority of people have done so from time to time.

It also seems somewhat off for you to be complaining about unfair treatment, given how much you like to bait people.
 
timhau said:
I'd look at that complaint a lot more charitably if it came with even the occasional condemnation of Trump's regular incivility.
Click to expand...

Yes! It wasn't Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama who on multiple occasions suggested roughing up protesters.

I'm so sick of hearing about poor conservatives being insulted and being treated badly while they support a President who treats anyone that disagrees with him or refuses to put their noses in the crack of his ass badly. Everything in the GOP is a one way street these days. They will bend and break the rules and just say "so what?" .
 
timhau said:
I'd look at that complaint a lot more charitably if it came with even the occasional condemnation of Trump's regular incivility.
Click to expand...

They follow a man who is a horrible bully, disrespects women as a whole, mocked a disabled man, attacked a Gold Star family, repeatedly insulted a war hero who spent his entire adult life defending/working for his country and embraces despots like Kim and then complain about being victims of verbal abuse. Cry me river.
 
Segnosaur said:
Except of course that no formal request for an investigation has been made by the U.S. (suggesting that this is more of a smear tactic than a legitimate investigation into corruption).

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrai...-sonbut-only-if-theres-an-official-us-request

In addition you also have proportionality... Even if there is a legitimate reason to investigate Biden, making major foreign policy changes that can affect the geopolitical situation just because "Gosh, person X didn't pay their taxes" seems excessive (considering the Trump administration continues to support Saudi Arabia after they had a reporter actually killed.)

And finally... lets say there was a reason to investigate Biden. Lets say the crimes were serious enough to suspend aid if they were uncooperative.... The Trump administration may have still broken the law by not passing on a legitimate report to congress in a timely manner, as they were required to do.

(This is of course assumes the whistleblower complaint was about Trump/The Ukraine/Biden, and not some unrelated reason.)
Click to expand...


It appears that the latest tactic of the Trumpettes is to claim that the 1998 Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters allowed Trump to request Ukraine to conduct an investigation. My uneducated opinion upon reading the president's submission to the senate


https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text


is that it while it requires each country to provide assistance to ongoing investigations by the other country, such as releasing documents and records that it already possesses, subpoenaing witnesses, and detaining suspects, there is no provision that requires either country to initiate an investigation at the request of the other country. Nor would I expect either country to compromise their sovereignty by allowing another country to dictate criminal investigations. It also appears to me that the treaty specifies that contacts are to be between the US Attorney General and the Ukrainian Prosecutor General or their designated subordinates, which leaves out the presidents.


Not to mention, of course, that there was no attempt during the Phone Call to use the treaty as a justification for having Zelensky start an investigation.
 
Belz... said:
Except that on the issue of secret votes, he's right: I don't want my representative to vote against my interests, or I'll remove him and vote someone else in. But if he/she votes in secret, how can I do that? It subverts the democratic process.
Click to expand...


Secret votes for impeachment trials are a bad idea. I am in unequivocal agreement with that.

But it is interesting to see the idea that if provided with political cover the vocal supporters of Trump would kick him out of office.

It points to one of the flaws in the checks and balances system. Decisions in a Senate trial, important ones bearing on the integrity of the presidency and our government are not made on the facts, they are made on political expediency.

Not sure if that's fixable, but the secret ballot conceit sure makes it obvious.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
<snip>

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/1184914782253699072

Trump outside attorney Jay Sekulow to CNN: "The legal team was not involved in the Acting Chief of Staff's press briefing."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I understand why Trump's personal lawyers should be vetting the official statements of a government employee. Especially a high level one.

One might think there was concern that there was something which needed to be hidden simply to protect Trump personally from legal action.
 
quadraginta said:
I'm not sure I understand why Trump's personal lawyers should be vetting the official statements of a government employee. Especially a high level one.

One might think there was concern that there was something which needed to be hidden simply to protect Trump personally from legal action.
Click to expand...

It's just another case of an incompetent Trump employee who doesn't know when they should keep their mouth shut.
 
autumn1971 said:
I am very literally at the point that if a friend who supported trump dies I am happy. When there is a terrible multi-vehicle accident on I-75 I only hope that more trumpists died than Americans did.

This country needs traitors’s blood.
Click to expand...


Okay we see your outburst now let the adults in the room continue talking.

I keep saying we need a crying room here. We get posts like this all the time now.

"Oh I'm angry to the point of psychopathy, poor me, please look at me and agree!"

Your post is disgusting and what America does not need is people with your attitude. Neither does this forum. Go see a doctor if you need to talk about your feelings to someone.

What kind of response did you expect?
 
Wolrab said:
The vast majority of current and former military personnel are right of center.
Click to expand...

So what? I know a lot of people in the military and almost every one of them identifies more with the Republican party. But every single one of them also hates Trump. Most with a passion.
 
They wouldn't be fighting for Trump. They would be fighting for their families and country.
 
Wolrab said:
The vast majority of current and former military personnel are right of center.
Click to expand...

Something we're frequently told, but isn't often proven with evidence.

But then people also think the military is overwhelmingly straight, which is not so much the case.
 
Wolrab said:
They wouldn't be fighting for Trump. They would be fighting for their families and country.
Click to expand...

Who the heck do you think are going to be the factions in this new civil war?

I bet any civil war would be across a few state lines at most before the military is called in as peacekeepers.
 
theprestige said:
I think it's also fair to say that when people do certain things, they deserve to die. Murder, perhaps. Violent rape. Assorted egregious betrayals. Stuff like that. Not sure "marked a ballot for Donald Trump" should be on the list, though.
Click to expand...

Careful, you're being evil again. ;)

Roger Ramjets said:
No more than they are.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd want to follow the standard of people I despise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom