• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

Patooka said:
angelo said:
Could Pelosi theoretically be impeached instead?
Click to expand...

Any government official can be impeached.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly true.

https://www.answers.com/Q/Can_members_of_Congress_be_impeached


No. Members of the Senate and House of Representatives are removed from office through a different process involving only the chamber of Congress in which they work. Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the US Constitution, a Senator or Representative may be expelled if there is a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the members of the Senate or House body who are present.
Click to expand...

I don't think Pelosi needs to worry about 2/3rd of the House voting to remove her from office. She hasn't done anything illegal.
 
I wonder if a possible argument would be because it was Congressionally approved legislation and had to be paid to the Ukrainians, Trump didn't have the authority to withhold it. Therefore, it couldn't possibly be a Quid Pro Quo.
 
Yes, the Republicans plan on pretending that the crimes that Trump committed aren't crimes at all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/03/mulvaney-allies-lead-stonewall-against-democrats-impeachment-inquiry/



One of acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s top allies is preparing to deliver what President Trump wants but has failed to achieve so far in the impeachment inquiry: unquestioning loyalty from administration staff.
Russell Vought, a Mulvaney protege who leads the White House Office of Management and Budget, intends a concerted defiance of congressional subpoenas in coming days, and two of his subordinates will follow suit — simultaneously proving their loyalty to the president and creating a potentially critical firewall regarding the alleged use of foreign aid to elicit political favors from a U.S. ally.
The OMB is at the nexus of the impeachment inquiry because Democrats are pressing for details about why the White House budget office effectively froze the Ukraine funds that Congress had already appropriated.
Click to expand...


Vought, who serves in an acting capacity in the job Mulvaney once held, has sought to build a relationship with the president for some time and sees standing firm against the impeachment inquiry as a way to bolster it, according to two White House officials. Like Trump, the longtime conservative warrior has derided the impeachment inquiry as a “sham process” and has said he will not comply with the subpoena to appear for a deposition this coming Wednesday. Vought shares the president’s disdain of foreign aid and has sought to cut it in previous budgets.
Click to expand...


So, to sum it up....Lying about sex=bad impeachable offense. Trying to bribe a foreign nation by refusing to give aide that has already been approved by the Congress to find dirt on a political opponent=no problem. Then there's all the other things he's done that nobody even talks about anymore. And, Trump has been accused of sexual assault by about 23 women. No problem. Trump is above the law and all manner of decency as far as his Republican sycophants are concerned.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
I wonder if a possible argument would be because it was Congressionally approved legislation and had to be paid to the Ukrainians, Trump didn't have the authority to withhold it. Therefore, it couldn't possibly be a Quid Pro Quo.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a Giuliani Defense.
"He didn't have the authority to stop it, so the threat to stop it was empty. Therefore he's innocent."
"But payment of the aid money WAS withheld, right?"
"Yes, of course it was. We did that so they'd know it was a real threat."
"So, the empty threat was a real threat? This is your defense?"
"Yes. But legally, the action we actually took was an empty threat on paper, so they cannot convict on paper."
 
Keith&Co. said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
I wonder if a possible argument would be because it was Congressionally approved legislation and had to be paid to the Ukrainians, Trump didn't have the authority to withhold it. Therefore, it couldn't possibly be a Quid Pro Quo.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a Giuliani Defense.
"He didn't have the authority to stop it, so the threat to stop it was empty. Therefore he's innocent."
"But payment of the aid money WAS withheld, right?"
"Yes, of course it was. We did that so they'd know it was a real threat."
"So, the empty threat was a real threat? This is your defense?"
"Yes. But legally, the action we actually took was an empty threat on paper, so they cannot convict on paper."
Click to expand...
Of course, a bluff would still lead to an abuse of power, even if this bluff defense could work against blocking a criminal charge.

And the Quid Pro Quo is also the slam dunk of a Campaign Finance violation... there can't be a Quid Pro Quo without a campaign finance violation. The campaign finance violation exists regardless to a quid pro quo.
 
The GOP wouldn't vote for his conviction. They'd get him to leave first... give him a sweetheart of a deal and hope he takes it.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
The GOP wouldn't vote for his conviction. They'd get him to leave first... give him a sweetheart of a deal and hope he takes it.
Click to expand...
Yes. All about protecting the GOP. They're vulnerable if they vote to convict, they're vulnerable if they vote to cover for his felonies.


So they'll convince him it's to his benefit, because he's certainly not going to take a bullet for the GOP's benefit.
 
lpetrich said:
Primary Challenges Might Keep These Republican Senators From Voting To Remove Trump | FiveThirtyEight

Listing Susan Collins ME, Cory Gardner CO, Thom Tillis NC, Joni Ernst IA, Martha McSally AZ as vulnerable to electoral challenges and thus unwilling to risk alienating the party base. Two of them already have primary challengers: Tillis and McSally.

So it may be hard to get 20 Republicans willing to vote for removing Trump from office.
Click to expand...

Good. Given that Trump isn't going to be removed from office and will need to be voted out, putting all of these Senators on the record as supporting him is the best way to help throw them out of office as well and help the Dems take that chamber so that the GOP has even less power and influence over US policy.
 
NPR was interviewing a GOP'er in Congress on Friday and he wouldn't bite on what Trump had done, as it is all "theoretical" right now. The interviewer did ask if the accusation gave the GOP'er congressman pause. He noted yes. What I wish the interviewer asked next was "Why?" Because the harshest the GOP has got is 'well what he did was inappropriate, but not impeachable'. It'd be good to get a congressman on record as to why what happened would be inappropriate.
Tom Sawyer said:
lpetrich said:
Primary Challenges Might Keep These Republican Senators From Voting To Remove Trump | FiveThirtyEight

Listing Susan Collins ME, Cory Gardner CO, Thom Tillis NC, Joni Ernst IA, Martha McSally AZ as vulnerable to electoral challenges and thus unwilling to risk alienating the party base. Two of them already have primary challengers: Tillis and McSally.

So it may be hard to get 20 Republicans willing to vote for removing Trump from office.
Click to expand...

Good. Given that Trump isn't going to be removed from office and will need to be voted out, putting all of these Senators on the record as supporting him is the best way to help throw them out of office as well and help the Dems take that chamber so that the GOP has even less power and influence over US policy.
Click to expand...
Without 60 Dem votes in the Senate, the GOP still can strangle the Senate.
 
I wish Dems would start pointing out that "inappropriate, not impeachable" means that they are conceding he's guilty.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
NPR was interviewing a GOP'er in Congress on Friday and he wouldn't bite on what Trump had done, as it is all "theoretical" right now. The interviewer did ask if the accusation gave the GOP'er congressman pause. He noted yes. What I wish the interviewer asked next was "Why?" Because the harshest the GOP has got is 'well what he did was inappropriate, but not impeachable'. It'd be good to get a congressman on record as to why what happened would be inappropriate.
Tom Sawyer said:
lpetrich said:
Primary Challenges Might Keep These Republican Senators From Voting To Remove Trump | FiveThirtyEight

Listing Susan Collins ME, Cory Gardner CO, Thom Tillis NC, Joni Ernst IA, Martha McSally AZ as vulnerable to electoral challenges and thus unwilling to risk alienating the party base. Two of them already have primary challengers: Tillis and McSally.

So it may be hard to get 20 Republicans willing to vote for removing Trump from office.
Click to expand...

Good. Given that Trump isn't going to be removed from office and will need to be voted out, putting all of these Senators on the record as supporting him is the best way to help throw them out of office as well and help the Dems take that chamber so that the GOP has even less power and influence over US policy.
Click to expand...
Without 60 Dem votes in the Senate, the GOP still can strangle the Senate.
Click to expand...

If Dems take over the senate, could they remove the sixty vote filibuster rule?
 
Koyaanisqatsi said:
I wish Dems would start pointing out that "inappropriate, not impeachable" means that they are conceding he's guilty.
Click to expand...

.. and that they would stop calling the hand-written, edited, redacted, and inappropriately classified summary of the Ukraine call a "transcript".
.. and that they would stop calling LIES anything but LIES
.. and that they would start talking about Trump's children everytime Biden's kid is mentioned
.. and that they would stop scaring the shit out of ignorant people with their most-woke competitions
.. and that they would start calling out "gun grabbers" and "99% tax raters" as "the impossibly left that should not be granted a platform"
.. and.. and... so many obvious things they are doing to intentionally lose.
 
A pair of deposition transcripts, McKinley and Yovanovitch, today. The media is now going through it.
 
Rep. Schiff says Volker's and Sondland's testimony to come out tomorrow.
 
RNC funded effort to jam House Democrats' office phone lines amid impeachment fight: report

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/468938-rnc-funded-effort-to-jam-house-democrats-office-phone-lines-amid-impeachment

The Republican National Committee (RNC) funded an effort to tie up House Democrats’ office phone lines as the impeachment fight with the Trump administration intensifies, The New York Times reported Monday.

The RNC paid for about 11,000 calls to almost three dozen House Democrats to influence public opinion on the impeachment inquiry and clog the representatives’ phone lines, affecting access to the lawmakers, two people briefed on the effort told the Times.

RNC officials reportedly discussed the plan at an event with more than a dozen GOP aides, advisers and officials, called the “Off the Record” dinner, the sources told the Times. The officials signaled the calls were automated and the goal was to jam the Democrats’ phone lines.
Republican committee officials told the Times the calls were not prerecorded “robocalls” and the organization utilized a vendor to ask voters their opinions on the inquiry. If voters were against the inquiry, the call allowed them to be forwarded to their House representative’s office.

"Our supporters are incredibly fired up to help us fight this impeachment charade,” Mike Reed, an RNC spokesman, told the Times. “Our ‘stop the madness’ campaign has helped hundreds of thousands of voters get the information they need to reach out to their Democrat representatives and tell them to drop the phony impeachment inquiry and get back to work for the American people.”
Click to expand...

How is this even legal?
 
Keith&Co. said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Exactly. His blow job didn't hurt anybody.
Click to expand...
Well, it hurt Hillary.
Frankly, i'd have expected the right to give him a medal for that... no one embarrassed her on Natl. TV as badly, ever. Includingbthe 2016 election, she actually got more votes.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if his infidelities were news to her and thus I don't think she was harmed by it.

Now, dragging the case through the media hurt her.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-ukraine-fire-prosecutor-discussed-184258028.html

...
KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine plans to fire the prosecutor who led investigations into the firm where Joe Biden's son served on the board, a central figure in the activity at the heart of impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump, a source told Reuters.
Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has acknowledged meeting the prosecutor, Kostiantyn Kulyk, to discuss accusations against the Bidens.
The decision to sideline someone who played an important role in Giuliani's efforts to find out damaging information about the Bidens comes as Ukraine has tried to avoid getting drawn into a partisan fight in Washington.
...

---------

Interesting. Will Ukraine come clean about the rat fuckery that went on with Giuliani and friends in Ukraine? Will all of this come back to bite Trump on the ass?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom