Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
It's Graham talking about the Clinton Impeachment, and how vital it was to impeach even if the Senate would not convict.
Click to expand...
I wonder if he's watched these clips of his younger self recently. Impeachment is about "cleansing the office." Well said, senator!
 
Horatius said:
Back when I said "We need "So little doubt that even the most corrupt ******** in the Senate finally feel some shame in trying to publicly claim there's still some doubt" levels of evidence", I wasn't just thinking about Senators. That line applies to just about everyone still supporting the Republican Party at this point, which means you.

There's no way you can't honestly see how bad the evidence against Trump is. The problem is, you apparently don't seem to care about that. You're happy playing these stupid reindeer games instead of doing what you know is right. So when I talk about "feel some shame in trying to publicly claim there's still some doubt" levels of evidence, I'm talking about you. These hearing need to continue until there's enough evidence on the table that even you finally throw your hands up and admit Trump needs to go, and needs to go now.
Click to expand...

It's only wrong when the Democrats/liberals/progs/etc do it. Otherwise it's just funny. 'LOL, look how upset the stooopid libs are at Trumps crimes and corruption! LOL!'

I see it all over facebook. They literally do not care, because trump is on 'their side'.
 
theprestige said:
That's so sweet. But what's the point of the impeachment inquiry? Is it just jobsworths doing their jobs?
Click to expand...

Jumping Jesus on a pogo-stick, it is about upholding the Constitution of the United States!

Republicans have abandoned that document
 
mgidm86 said:
Maybe many do try to stay informed. Everyone thinks their news is the correct news, unbiased and all that. It's a minefield of bullcrap.

People may actually believe CNN is still an impartial news source, or FOX. I can't think of a single source that I completely trust. Not even close.

I come here often to hear the "rest of the story" or at least get a few different takes on it. I learn more here than I can at any news site. Still have to sort through the bull ;)

Which of us has the real news and the correct opinions? None of us.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, especially the info I get here. I do read the opposite sides ideas.
We disagree about a lot, but not everything
 
theprestige said:
He didn't seem to get a lot of straight answers either. Setting aside the weird ass Appeal to Lindsay Graham argument for a moment, what's your take? What do you think the House Democrats' endgame actually is?
Click to expand...

Since it's all but certain that the Trumptrash in the Senate won't do their duty to the nation, it seems clear the goal is to get the information in front of the electorate.
 
theprestige said:
He didn't seem to get a lot of straight answers either. Setting aside the weird ass Appeal to Lindsay Graham argument for a moment, what's your take? What do you think the House Democrats' endgame actually is?
Click to expand...

You can't consistently post in bad faith and then act all surprised and hurt that people act as if you're posting in bad faith.

So no, thank you. I'm not interested in playing your games.
 
Minoosh said:
I don't read it much because I don't subscribe, but I see it as valuable because it's also owned by Murdoch. If it reports anything negative about Trump it's much harder for conservatives to write it off as "fake news." The WSJ needs to retain its credibility as a serious news source. Fox News has no such issue.
Click to expand...

This illustrates something I try to say all the time; these are businesses, they rely on their model of truthful reporting making them money.

Fox News does not, it has more of a Weekly World News model of making money.

Why are so many Republicans denying that Capitalism works?
 
theprestige said:
The House Democrats' goal, and whether they're succeeding at it, is probably the most interesting and important issue here.
Click to expand...

The House Democrats’ goal is upholding the Constitution by acting as a check on executive abuse.

Do you agree or disagree with this?
 
theprestige said:
The House Democrats' goal, and whether they're succeeding at it, is probably the most interesting and important issue here.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that?
Would the goal of upholding US law be somehow become invalid if Democrats also would like to win the next election?
 
Minoosh said:
I don't read it much because I don't subscribe, but I see it as valuable because it's also owned by Murdoch. If it reports anything negative about Trump it's much harder for conservatives to write it off as "fake news." The WSJ needs to retain its credibility as a serious news source. Fox News has no such issue.
Click to expand...

The editorials tend to be pro-Trump. For example, a recent editorial argues that the judge's ruling McGahn must testify before Congress has made Congress king and paves the way for partisan harassment of the executive branch.

But the columns are often quite critical of Trump. Peggy Noonan (speechwriter for Reagan) is a good example.
 
Re: reasons for impeachment, even if efforts will likely fail in the senate, and Lindey Graham's quotes during Clinton's impeachment...
theprestige said:
That's your argument for why House Democrats should pursue impeachment? Lindsey Graham is a hypocrite? Seems like a non sequitur to me.
Click to expand...
Some people might actually think that Graham had an actual valid point... that integrity and honor are important features of the office of the president, and impeachment (even if it fails in removal) is a valuable tool because it highlights things that go against that integrity.

Now, the reason why that particular quote/video of Graham is so useful:

- Because it makes it harder to dismiss the impeachment as simply 'democratic talking points' when its actually a republican making the statement

- It highlights the lack of integrity that republicans currently exhibit.
 
phiwum said:
The editorials tend to be pro-Trump. For example, a recent editorial argues that the judge's ruling McGahn must testify before Congress has made Congress king and paves the way for partisan harassment of the executive branch.

But the columns are often quite critical of Trump. Peggy Noonan (speechwriter for Reagan) is a good example.
Click to expand...

Except it doesn't make Congress King. Congress has a Constitutional duty to perform government oversight. In other words it is their damn job to keep the executive in check. And it may not do that without transparency.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Why do you think that?
Would the goal of upholding US law be somehow become invalid if Democrats also would like to win the next election?
Click to expand...

Look at it from a position of skeptical inquiry, not moral judgement. Of course the Democrat would also like to win the next election. And that's fine. If their goal is to win the next election, we can look at what they're doing, and whether or not it's working, without passing judgement on the propriety of the goal. Likewise if their goal is to uphold US law.

Likewise if their goal is to do both those things. Do you think we shouldn't examine what the goal is, and whether it's being achieved?
 
acbytesla said:
Except it doesn't make Congress King. Congress has a Constitutional duty to perform government oversight. In other words it is their damn job to keep the executive in check. And it may not do that without transparency.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I agreed with the editorial. I mentioned it only to illustrate that the WSJ editorial board tends to a pro-Trump stance.

The opinion columns are often not supportive of Trump and the news content is reliably accurate.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Look at it from a position of skeptical inquiry, not moral judgement. Of course the Democrat would also like to win the next election. And that's fine. If their goal is to win the next election, we can look at what they're doing, and whether or not it's working, without passing judgement on the propriety of the goal. Likewise if their goal is to uphold US law.

Likewise if their goal is to do both those things. Do you think we shouldn't examine what the goal is, and whether it's being achieved?
Click to expand...

I don't think you can tell whether impeachment will lead to the Democrats winning the election. But impeachment is also about our founding principles. It is about controlling a disaster before it is too late. It's about maintaining the limits of the executive. It's about limiting Hitler's powers to Chancellor before he becomes Dur Fuhrer.

It's a dangerous game the Republicans are playing. And you should know that it is.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Do you think we shouldn't examine what the goal is, and whether it's being achieved?
Click to expand...

I sure as **** don't think it has any priority compared to upholding the law: once the investigation is done you can wonder about ulterior motives, but if you are doing it during the process, you are clearly trying to shoot the messenger.
 
phiwum said:
I didn't say I agreed with the editorial. I mentioned it only to illustrate that the WSJ editorial board tends to a pro-Trump stance.

The opinion columns are often not supportive of Trump and the news content is reliably accurate.
Click to expand...

I know that and I didn't say you did. I was just pointing out their position was dishonest.
 
theprestige said:
Look at it from a position of skeptical inquiry, not moral judgement. Of course the Democrat would also like to win the next election. And that's fine. If their goal is to win the next election, we can look at what they're doing, and whether or not it's working, without passing judgement on the propriety of the goal. Likewise if their goal is to uphold US law.

Likewise if their goal is to do both those things. Do you think we shouldn't examine what the goal is, and whether it's being achieved?
Click to expand...


It sounds like you are struggling with doubts about the theory that impeachment would be political poison for Democrats. Good.
 
phiwum said:
For example, a recent editorial argues that the judge's ruling McGahn must testify before Congress has made Congress king and paves the way for partisan harassment of the executive branch.
Click to expand...
There is way too much wiggle room in the phrase "paves the way." One could just as well say that any prosecutor bringing an indictment "paves the way" for prosecutorial abuse.

Equivocation, slippery slope fallacy, rhetoric that ignores the substantive issues - did I miss anything?
 
Trebuchet said:
Trump claims he'd love for everybody, including himself, to testify, but he's doing the to protect future Presidents. Nixon made the same argument.
Click to expand...

Trump isn't trying to protect anything but his big white fat ass.
 
theprestige said:
<snip> But what's the point of the impeachment inquiry? Is it just jobsworths doing their jobs?
Click to expand...

PhantomWolf said:
Ask this guy....

Click to expand...

theprestige said:
yt;dw
Click to expand...

Oh, I'll bet you at least clicked "I AGREE" and saw who it was that PW was referring to... and then you either watched and decided to say you didn't or really did make like an ostrich.

IMO, you're being disingenuous, so in answer to your question in the first quote, I would say that you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job if Congress determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honour and integrity to the office.

That last part is what Lindsay "Flip Flop" Graham said in the video you claimed not to have watched.

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
“The President’s actions are having a profound impact on our society. His misdeeds have caused many to mistrust elected officials. Cynicism is swelling among the grass roots. His breach of trust has eroded the public’s faith in the office of the Presidency.”

You'd be forgiven for thinking that this is a recent quote from a Democrat Congressman talking about Trump. It is in fact, a quote talking about Bill Clinton in 1999, from Senator Chuck Grassley - another Repugnican hypocrite. Lindsay "Flip Flop" Graham and Grassley aren't the only hypocrites, they are just the worst of a bad lot.

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/2/20895024/bill-clinton-donald-trump-impeachment-republicans

The only one of these who comes out with any honour at all is Susan Collins

1999 Clinton: “I believe that in order to convict, we must conclude from the evidence presented to us with no room for doubt that our Constitution will be injured and our democracy suffer should the President remain in office one moment more.

“In this instance, the claims against the President fail to reach this very high standard. Therefore, albeit reluctantly, I will vote to acquit William Jefferson Clinton on both counts.”

2019 Trump: “If there are articles of impeachment I would be a juror just as I was in the trial for President Clinton, and as a juror I think it’s inappropriate for me to reach conclusions about evidence or to comment on the proceedings in the House.”
 
theprestige said:
Thanks.

PhantomWolf, is Graham's argument supposed to be your argument? Is that why you posted it?
Click to expand...

Probably addressed before I scrolled further...

The point is to show Graham's rank hypocrisy. Back in '98 he was all fired up about cleansing the office of the Presidency, because Willy got a BJ from a consenting adult.

Now he stands behind a credibly accused sexual abuser who pays off his other side action with illegal campaign contributions. (Yeah, I know, this latter was before he was in office, but was in order to help get him into office.) Not to mention all the other rat douchery he's been up to.

To Graham and his lot, just one minor offense by a Dem demands the full measure of righteous wrath. But a Repub can do not wrong--even potentially gunning down some shlub on 5th Avenue, it would seem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom