ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Congressional hearings , donald trump , impeachment , Trump administration , Trump controversies

Closed Thread
Old 5th December 2019, 03:16 PM   #521
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,467
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
Ken Starr says Piglosi's abuse of power by seizing control of the House Judiciary Committee and not allowing a robust debate may very well convince The Turtle to just hold a vote to dismiss.
First of all, any sort of impeachment proceedings in the senate are going to be presided over Justice Roberts (as described out in the constitution), so the ability of Moscow Mitch to influence the proceedings will be limited.

Secondly, why exactly are you assuming that even if they had a 'robust' debate in the Judiciary committee that the republicans wouldn't vote to acquit anyways? The republicans are corrupt. Regardless of whatever evidence is provided, they will not vote to remove Trump. Suggesting that giving more power to the republicans in the name of 'robust debate' might somehow convince them to remove Trump is foolish.

We have seen how the republicans act... holding a pizza party to complain about access to the hearings, when they actually had the ability to actually attend, demands to interview the whistleblower (which would amount to illegal intimidation), having Nunes involved (even though he's got a clear conflict of interest). Trying to allow more 'robust debate' will likely just result in more conspiracy theory nonsense, more grand standing, more bunk from the republican side.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 03:25 PM   #522
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 24,577
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Piglosi...that's about as much as I would expect in all honesty. Why is it the right always has to compare women to animals? Hildabeast, Piglosi, etc.? This says way more about the people that use it than it does about their targets. It's childish, lame, and I don't even know what it's trying to get at. I'd ask for an explanation but it would probably be witty as the name.
Downright Trumpian, in fact. He thinks childish name-calling is clever.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 03:38 PM   #523
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 21,988
The president bribing a vulnerable ally by illegaly withholding congress aproved military aid they desperately needed to defend themselves in a war against the territory seizing plans of a murderous dictator who interfered with US elections to help the president win is fine. All so that the president could force this ally to announce an investigation into a political rival and a prior American investigation into his possible Russian collusion in said election, with his nutty personal lawyer causing horror among career diplomats with his back channel negotiations, including with convicted criminals. Get over it.

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 5th December 2019 at 03:47 PM.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 03:49 PM   #524
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78,217
The Democrats need to start using the talking point, "this wasn't about corruption in Ukraine, that's a lie".
__________________
TRUMP CHEATS What color hat should I order with that logo? Red on black maybe? Or black on pink?

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 03:50 PM   #525
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,322
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
First of all, any sort of impeachment proceedings in the senate are going to be presided over Justice Roberts (as described out in the constitution), so the ability of Moscow Mitch to influence the proceedings will be limited.
Not so. The President of the Senate has no more power over the proceedings when it's a Chief Justice, than when it's the Vice President. The actual proceedings are determined by the rules of the Senate, which are under the purview of the Senate majority leader.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 03:52 PM   #526
Paul2
Philosopher
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,548
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not so. The President of the Senate has no more power over the proceedings when it's a Chief Justice, than when it's the Vice President. The actual proceedings are determined by the rules of the Senate, which are under the purview of the Senate majority leader.
I believe the rules of the Senate were adopted and can be changed only by a majority of Senators, not by the majority leader, although perhaps the majority leader could stall any move to change the rules?
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.

Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 04:12 PM   #527
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,996
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not so. The President of the Senate has no more power over the proceedings when it's a Chief Justice, than when it's the Vice President. The actual proceedings are determined by the rules of the Senate, which are under the purview of the Senate majority leader.
That is totally untrue. The President of the Senate can rule on all proceedings as he/she sees fit. And each member must not speak during the proceedings. Even the Senate Majority leader. They cannot interrupt on pain of imprisonment. This is part of the oath each takes prior to the proceedings.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 04:31 PM   #528
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 10,405
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It wouldn't matter if it was. Lying about a blow job that wasn't directly related to abuse of power is not IN ANY WAY (unless you count 'can be described in English words') like what Trump is being charged with.
Agreed...I've been saying this all along.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 04:42 PM   #529
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 25,091
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Downright Trumpian, in fact. He thinks childish name-calling is clever.
I remember, let's see...about 61 years ago, in sixth grade, the bratty girls came up with "Demorats" as a joint pejorative. Right up to speed, this.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 04:59 PM   #530
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 21,320
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Well, here is a start start for you, gleaned from posts by This is the End, myself et al
Late 2018: Rudy Giuliani sends his two (now indicted) associates, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas to Ukraine to search for information to undermine the Special Counsel's investigation, and to try to find dirt on Trump's political opponents. They begin a smear campaign against Ukraine Amb Marie Yovanovich, who they see as a roadblock in their attempts encourage corruption to keep taking place in Ukraine.

March 5: Amb Marie Yovanovich gives a speech to the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, decrying the lack of progress to combat corruption, saying: "It is increasingly clear that Ukraine's once-in-a-generation opportunity for change has not yet resulted in the anti-corruption or rule of law reforms that Ukrainians expect or deserve."

March 12: Joe Biden gives his first strong signal yet that he will soon get into the 2020 presidential race.

Mid-march: The smear campaign by Giuliani and his associates, Parnas and Fruman begins to ramp up.

April 21: Volodymyr Zelensky elected President of Ukraine.

April 24:
Trump recalls Amb Yovanivich.

April 25: Joe Biden formally announces that he is running for POTUS in 2020.

July 25th: The crime. (The extortion phone call to the Ukraine for help setting up Biden.)

Aug 12th: The whistle-blower complaint.

Aug 28th: News breaks about the extortion phone call and aid being withheld.

Sept 9th (Day): Investigations Begin.

Sept 9th (Night): Trump finds out about the investigation and then makes the "I WANT NOTHING. I WANT NOTHING. NO QUID PRO QUO!" coverup phone call.

Sept 11th: Aid to Ukraine released.

Sept 24rd (Morning): Impeachment inquiry leaked.

Sept 24rd (Afternoon): Trump phone call to Pelosi asking if she and he can "work something out" to "do something about this whole whistle-blower thing". He even tells her that he is prepared to put gun control on the table in exchange. (Her response to him was only that "He and his people should start obeying the law").


Sept 24th (Evening): Impeachment inquiry is announced.
I don't believe I've heard this part until now. It seems like that would be a big deal. Like when he asked before, I think it was about Comey "letting the Stone thing go"?
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 05:03 PM   #531
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,839
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I don't believe I've heard this part until now. It seems like that would be a big deal. Like when he asked before, I think it was about Comey "letting the Stone thing go"?
According to press reports, Trump interpreted what she said as a deal not to impeach. And that's why he freaked when they went forward a couple days later.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 05:21 PM   #532
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,322
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
I believe the rules of the Senate were adopted and can be changed only by a majority of Senators, not by the majority leader, although perhaps the majority leader could stall any move to change the rules?
I'm not clear on all the details, but I do know that the President of the Senate doesn't actually have authority over the rules of the Senate, or how they conduct their business. His two main duties are to publish the decisions of the Senate, and cast tie-breaker votes. It is this second duty that makes it necessary to bring in the Chief Justice to fill the role, when the business of the Senate is impeachment of the President or Vice President.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 05:39 PM   #533
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 24,577
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The Democrats need to start using the talking point, "this wasn't about corruption in Ukraine, that's a lie".
Followed by "It was an attempt to corrupt Ukraine."
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 05:49 PM   #534
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,996
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not clear on all the details, but I do know that the President of the Senate doesn't actually have authority over the rules of the Senate, or how they conduct their business. His two main duties are to publish the decisions of the Senate, and cast tie-breaker votes. It is this second duty that makes it necessary to bring in the Chief Justice to fill the role, when the business of the Senate is impeachment of the President or Vice President.
That's the Vice President, not specifically the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate calls members to order, recognizes members and makes rulings according to the rules of the Senate at that time. Just as Schiff "presides" over the House Intelligence Committee and Nadler presides over the Judiciary committee, the President of the Senate presides over the floor of the Senate.

The "rules" of the Senate are made at the beginning of the session and approved by majority vote at that time.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 06:31 PM   #535
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78,217
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Followed by "It was an attempt to corrupt Ukraine."
No!!!!! Don't clutter the message up. No one cares about corruption in Ukraine.

The alt-right playbook: Never play defense.

Please, Treb, watch the first 2 minutes of the video to see why your suggestion is wrong.
__________________
TRUMP CHEATS What color hat should I order with that logo? Red on black maybe? Or black on pink?

Space Force.
Because feeding poor people is socialism.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 5th December 2019 at 06:32 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 12:33 AM   #536
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,088
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
Did Piglosi say the lies in the articles of impeachment are going to involve Russia and not Ukraine? If so, that's hilarious. Oh, Trump's approval at Rasmussen is up to 52% today, which is probably why she rushed out and made the announcement.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 12:35 AM   #537
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,088
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Double negatives aren't even a thing in a lot of languages, just another piece of language fandom the Grammar Nazis treat as canon.
There are fine people on both sides.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 12:57 AM   #538
slyjoe
Graduate Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins
Posts: 1,747
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not clear on all the details, but I do know that the President of the Senate doesn't actually have authority over the rules of the Senate, or how they conduct their business. His two main duties are to publish the decisions of the Senate, and cast tie-breaker votes. It is this second duty that makes it necessary to bring in the Chief Justice to fill the role, when the business of the Senate is impeachment of the President or Vice President.
No, it's explicitly laid out in the Constitution.

"Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provides:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present."

Notice the word "preside". The founders thought this was a trial, and there was supposed to be a judge; i.e., the Chief Justice.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 02:25 AM   #539
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,652
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I don't disagree with this at all, as an appropriately cynical model of how to predict senatorial behavior. What I'm getting at, though, is that the entire point of oath-taking is to bind oneself to specified principles even (perhaps especially) when doing so is bad for you personally, e.g. reducing one's chances at re-election. Elected officials who wax on about the wisdom of the founders (e.g. Oklahoma Senators) can set aside their solemn promise to defend the constitution whenever doing so runs against popular opinion back home (e.g. Okies) but they cannot expect us to take them seriously as men of integrity thereafter.
There are plenty of people happy to take the Republicans - Trump included - seriously as men and women of integrity.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 02:38 AM   #540
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 23,281
Trump Tweets

Where’s the Fake Whistleblower? Where’s Whistleblower number 2? Where’s the phony informer who got it all wrong?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 02:39 AM   #541
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,652
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
ETA3: Has anyone tried to list out the probable articles yet?
From the questioning of the experts, I'd guess at bribery/extortion for the phone call/withholding the aid/withholding the White House visit, obstruction of justice for Mueller, and obstruction of Congress for non-compliance with subpoenas, etc.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 02:39 AM   #542
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,748
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
There are plenty of people happy to take the Republicans - Trump included - seriously as men and women of integrity.
...despite all evidence to the contrary...
__________________
“Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”-Sen. Lindsey Graham
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 05:29 AM   #543
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,828
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
Piglosi
Mature.

Quote:
Oh, Trump's approval at Rasmussen is up to 52% today
Give me a second, I'll be polling my sycophants today to see if they approve of me.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 05:32 AM   #544
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,828
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
But it is also true that technically he was not impeached for the blowjob but for perjury
Yeah. Over a blowjob.


Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Enh. President Clinton got away with perjury, and the country didn't fall apart. I don't see the country falling apart if President Trump also gets away with perjury.
Yes, because perjury about a blowjob is exactly as important and dangerous to national security as perjury about giving away national secrets, covering for interference in the democratic process of the US, and pushing a country towards oblivion to help your political campaign.

You have absolutely got it.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 05:36 AM   #545
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,828
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Can you say "false equivalence". Clinton perjured himself about an irrelevant and personal event.

In contrast, Donald Trump BRIBED a foreign power to interfere in the upcoming election and followed it up by Obstructing Justice and Obstructing Congress by instructing government officials not to cooperate with the investigation.
  • Is bribery or the solicitation of bribery ok with you?
  • Do you believe in check and balances ?
  • Do you believe in fair elections?
  • Is the power of the President unlimited?
  • Is it ok for the President to leverage the power of his office for help from foreign powers win reelection?
Well of course he does and of course it's not. But theprestige "hasn't" yet seen any evidence of wrongdoing. But don't let that fool you. He really doesn't like Trump.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 06:07 AM   #546
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,500
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
From the questioning of the experts, I'd guess at bribery/extortion for the phone call/withholding the aid/withholding the White House visit, obstruction of justice for Mueller, and obstruction of Congress for non-compliance with subpoenas, etc.
That seems about right to me.

NYT sources say there may be two Ukraine-related articles:
Quote:
Privately, Democrats believe they could end up with three to four articles of impeachment: one or two focused on the president’s alleged abuse of power related to Ukraine, another chronicling his obstruction of congressional requests for witnesses and documents, and potentially an article focused on findings by Mr. Mueller charging Mr. Trump with obstructing justice when he tried to thwart the Russia investigation.
I'm guessing one for conditioning an official act on a personal benefit (i.e. common law bribery) and another for something else, perhaps the abuse of power at OMB in violation of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974WP.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 08:32 AM   #547
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,500
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Come on Damion, Cherry picking out Trump's additional perjury potential is a dismissive segue.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, Ginger.

The specific perjury I'm talking about here was reported by NYT a while back.

Quote:
Representative Val B. Demings, brought up Mr. Trump’s written responses and asked whether “his answers showed that he wasn’t always being truthful.”

Rather than demurring as he had to similar questions, Mr. Mueller instead appeared to confirm her assessment, responding, “I would say generally.”
Quote:
Ms. Demings raised her question in the context of Mr. Trump’s claim to know nothing during the campaign about what WikiLeaks had or was planning to publish. Little is publicly known about the Trump campaign’s actions related to WikiLeaks because that portion of the Mueller report was heavily redacted. The justification for the censorship is that the information relates to a current matter, presumably the indictment of Mr. Trump’s longtime adviser Roger J. Stone Jr.
Seems to me that lying under oath about subverting free and fair elections is at least as important as lying under oath about (admittedly unethical) office liaisons.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 6th December 2019 at 09:54 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 09:46 AM   #548
BrooklynBaby
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
First of all, any sort of impeachment proceedings in the senate are going to be presided over Justice Roberts (as described out in the constitution), so the ability of Moscow Mitch to influence the proceedings will be limited.

Secondly, why exactly are you assuming that even if they had a 'robust' debate in the Judiciary committee that the republicans wouldn't vote to acquit anyways? The republicans are corrupt. Regardless of whatever evidence is provided, they will not vote to remove Trump. Suggesting that giving more power to the republicans in the name of 'robust debate' might somehow convince them to remove Trump is foolish.

We have seen how the republicans act... holding a pizza party to complain about access to the hearings, when they actually had the ability to actually attend, demands to interview the whistleblower (which would amount to illegal intimidation), having Nunes involved (even though he's got a clear conflict of interest). Trying to allow more 'robust debate' will likely just result in more conspiracy theory nonsense, more grand standing, more bunk from the republican side.
The Turtle had said previously there would be a 6-8 week trial and he didn't have the votes to dismiss, notwithstanding the fact he has 53 Republicans in the Senate.

If you don't understand the importance of both sides being able to call witnesses, I can't be of any help.
BrooklynBaby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 09:55 AM   #549
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,828
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
The Turtle had said previously there would be a 6-8 week trial and he didn't have the votes to dismiss, notwithstanding the fact he has 53 Republicans in the Senate.

If you don't understand the importance of both sides being able to call witnesses, I can't be of any help.
And how does Trump telling his folks not to testify factor into this?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 09:58 AM   #550
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,184
I believe Mitch McConnell when he says he intends to have a 6-8 week trial.

I do not believe he intends to have a 6-8 trial of Donald Trump.

The Republicans are salivating at the idea of a 6-8 week trial of all the Democratic movers and shakers.

Hell if the phrase "Hillary Clinton's e-mail servers" doesn't come up more often in the Senate Trial of Donald Trump then anything Trump did, I'll be shocked.

Hell at the rate this is going Bill Clinton is going to be recalled just to be punished for that damn blowjob.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 6th December 2019 at 10:01 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 09:58 AM   #551
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,467
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
If you don't understand the importance of both sides being able to call witnesses, I can't be of any help.
That's ok.
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove breach of rule 12


As for the importance of 'both sides calling witnesses', so far the Republicans have made the most noise about calling:

- The whistleblower. Which would 1) probably be illegal, 2) would probably put their life at risk, and 3) would be totally irrelevant, since the evidence revealed so far goes way beyond what the whistleblower initially revealed

- Hunter Biden, which would be useless because whatever actions Biden was doing (all evidence points to him not doing anything illegal), it is simply not relevant to the actions of the president.

If the republicans actually had a reasonable witness to call, someone who could provide actual real evidence (not just someone they can use in a smear campaign) I'd love to hear it.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot

Last edited by Agatha; 6th December 2019 at 12:02 PM.
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 09:59 AM   #552
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,500
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I believe Mitch McConnell plans to have a 6-8 week trial.

I do not believe he intends to have a 6-8 trial of Donald Trump.
Joe Biden will be put on trial, for the middling offense of allowing his fully grown failson off-leash.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 10:01 AM   #553
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,748
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
The Turtle had said previously there would be a 6-8 week trial and he didn't have the votes to dismiss, notwithstanding the fact he has 53 Republicans in the Senate.

If you don't understand the importance of both sides being able to call witnesses, I can't be of any help.
You aren't really addressing the post.
The question is: given the right kind of statements from the right kind of witnesses, do you think Republicans will convict Trump?
It seems rather clear that no amount of facts will be enough for them to do so.
__________________
“Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”-Sen. Lindsey Graham
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 10:04 AM   #554
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,088
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And how does Trump telling his folks not to testify factor into this?

The "importance (to Republicans) of both sides being able to call witnesses" is clear from who they want to testify and about what: anything other than what Trump did and his accomplices.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 10:07 AM   #555
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,554
Newt Gringrich is complaining that this is "modern day lynching" and it is sad that it is happening "on the eve of Christmas..."

Now, aside from the fact that it is following a Constitutional process (which lynchings were not at all), it has been pointed out that Newt Gringrich's congress impeached Bill Clinton 6 DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS!!!!

Reality has no bearing in any of this.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 10:11 AM   #556
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 53,201
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Newt Gringrich is complaining that this is "modern day lynching" and it is sad that it is happening "on the eve of Christmas..."

Now, aside from the fact that it is following a Constitutional process (which lynchings were not at all), it has been pointed out that Newt Gringrich's congress impeached Bill Clinton 6 DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS!!!!

Reality has no bearing in any of this.
Newt's hypocrisy is legendary. He was cheating on his wife during the whole of the Clinton debacle, and he made so many family values, infidelity is awful speeches.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 10:15 AM   #557
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,828
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Newt Gringrich is complaining that this is "modern day lynching" and it is sad that it is happening "on the eve of Christmas..."

Now, aside from the fact that it is following a Constitutional process (which lynchings were not at all), it has been pointed out that Newt Gringrich's congress impeached Bill Clinton 6 DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS!!!!

Reality has no bearing in any of this.
Gingrich is one of the architects of the modern, take-no-prisoners, anti-science, ****-you GOP. He should have no place in any discussion.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 10:27 AM   #558
rockysmith76
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 642
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Gingrich is one of the architects of the modern, take-no-prisoners, anti-science, ****-you GOP. He should have no place in any discussion.
for every such individual, you should have to lose one whiney, nanny state loving Liberal as well for checks and balancers sake.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 10:33 AM   #559
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,828
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
for every such individual, you should have to lose one whiney, nanny state loving Liberal as well for checks and balancers sake.
No. The world's not a zero-sum game. It's not my fault that the GOP is beyond salvation. The Democrats are far from perfect and I disagree with some of their politics, but they are better.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 10:35 AM   #560
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,184
Number of people who think there needs to be a "check and balance" between political parties is rather terrifying.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.