Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hilarious to see Democrats on this forum claiming a victory for Pelosi when she is going to end up caving without getting anything from McConnell.

For someone who is considered to be a savvy political strategist, she overplayed her hand. A trial will take place on terms that McConnell and the Republicans will decide. Trump will be exonerated and will win reelection in 2020.

The exoneration will be with zero Republican votes in favor conviction and between two and four Democratic senators who will vote to exonerate.

What a defeat for the Democrats only to be followed by Trump's reelection for another four years.

She doesn't "want" anything from McConnell. She wants to know what the rules are so she knows who to appoint as House Managers. Same thing when a little league baseball game starts, the managers have already met with the umpire(s) to go over the ground rules. Are you saying a little league game should have more integrity than an impeachment trial in the Senate?

But, impeachment was so "urgent." Trump is a "national security risk." It has to be done quickly.
Pure BS. She screwed up, didn't do her job, and is having buyer's remorse.
I posted a montage of House Democrats saying how URGENT impeachment was. Of course, it was deleted.
But, here are a few articles questioning her strategy:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-20/democrats-urgency-on-trump-s-impeachment-tested-by-pelosi-delay
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/23/impeachment_takes_a_holiday_--_starring_nancy_pelosi_142014.html
https://www.euronews.com/2019/12/22/house-democrats-undercut-themselves-withholding-impeachment-articles-vp-s-spokesman-n1106261

Hey Trumper,

I know you are brainwashed and of limited mental capacity just as your dear leader is. So I will try to use basic words (like tRump) so you can understand:

1. He asked a foreign government to interfere in our elections.
2. The 2020 election is fast approaching.
3. That ='s URGENT.
4. Moscow Mitch has pre-judged any trial so really must recuse himself.
5. ONE MORE TIME (please try to keep up) If the Senate does not remove him - I know they will not - HE WILL ALWAYS BE IMPEACHED. You apparently did not take a civics course in high school.

Hey, Friend,
I won't throw insults at you because I am apparently a kinder person than you.

1. No, he didn't.
2. True
3. If it is so damn urgent, why is Nancy holding onto the articles? You would think she would want to get them there as quickly as possibly, given the urgency.
4. No, he doesn't. You think Warren, Sanders, and all other Dem Senators haven't prejudged the trial? LOL>
5. He will make history as the first president impeached who wins reelection.

My point in the post above... in case you missed it.... is that for something that was terribly urgent during the House hearings, Nancy sure is taking her good old time getting those articles to the Senate.
Pretty much undercuts her claim that the process needed to be rushed because it was so urgent.

Sorry, not PP but this is GASLIGHTING GOP at its finest. Everyone in the world sees this administration intentionally evade, have shady Cohen/Guiliani lawyers, taunt North Korea, bully his own citizens (Teumo is the first president to call his own citizens stupid because they don’t hold his political belief). So why would this be any different??! The Gaslighting GOP is intentionally stallOmg, blocking witnesses, playing dirty, cozying up to Russia , and saying they know how they will vote without hearing evidence.

Let’s place this in other terms. You’re going through a divorce. You hear the judge say publicly, I already know who will get 100% custody of the child. Let’s just get it over with.

Did either of you have a fair trial? Should you proceed? Why would you? What if everyone taunts you and says, I thought the marriage was abusive, why are you stalling the trial?

How to you protect the integrity of the court?

When any party. ANY PARTY. Thinks this is acceptable, THEY HAVE LOST ALL INTEGRIRYY AND SHOULD NOT BE PUBLIC SERVANTS.

Perhaps a career in reality TV or international real estate development, steak-making, I dunno. But NOT congressional appointment that checks the power of a president. Congress must be as fit as the Commander In Chief.

Why would any American citizen disagree with this larger point? And why doesn’t anyone ever address it?

[Anonymous]

This C-Span coverage of the House floor is interesting. Can't wait to hear how the media outlets spin this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hilarious to see Democrats on this forum claiming a victory for Pelosi when she is going to end up caving without getting anything from McConnell.

For someone who is considered to be a savvy political strategist, she overplayed her hand. A trial will take place on terms that McConnell and the Republicans will decide. Trump will be exonerated and will win reelection in 2020.

The exoneration will be with zero Republican votes in favor conviction and between two and four Democratic senators who will vote to exonerate.

What a defeat for the Democrats only to be followed by Trump's reelection for another four years.

She doesn't "want" anything from McConnell. She wants to know what the rules are so she knows who to appoint as House Managers. Same thing when a little league baseball game starts, the managers have already met with the umpire(s) to go over the ground rules. Are you saying a little league game should have more integrity than an impeachment trial in the Senate?

But, impeachment was so "urgent." Trump is a "national security risk." It has to be done quickly.
Pure BS. She screwed up, didn't do her job, and is having buyer's remorse.
I posted a montage of House Democrats saying how URGENT impeachment was. Of course, it was deleted.
But, here are a few articles questioning her strategy:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-20/democrats-urgency-on-trump-s-impeachment-tested-by-pelosi-delay
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/23/impeachment_takes_a_holiday_--_starring_nancy_pelosi_142014.html
https://www.euronews.com/2019/12/22/house-democrats-undercut-themselves-withholding-impeachment-articles-vp-s-spokesman-n1106261

Hey Trumper,

I know you are brainwashed and of limited mental capacity just as your dear leader is. So I will try to use basic words (like tRump) so you can understand:

1. He asked a foreign government to interfere in our elections.
2. The 2020 election is fast approaching.
3. That ='s URGENT.
4. Moscow Mitch has pre-judged any trial so really must recuse himself.
5. ONE MORE TIME (please try to keep up) If the Senate does not remove him - I know they will not - HE WILL ALWAYS BE IMPEACHED. You apparently did not take a civics course in high school.

Hey, Friend,
I won't throw insults at you because I am apparently a kinder person than you.

1. No, he didn't.
2. True
3. If it is so damn urgent, why is Nancy holding onto the articles? You would think she would want to get them there as quickly as possibly, given the urgency.
4. No, he doesn't. You think Warren, Sanders, and all other Dem Senators haven't prejudged the trial? LOL>
5. He will make history as the first president impeached who wins reelection.

My point in the post above... in case you missed it.... is that for something that was terribly urgent during the House hearings, Nancy sure is taking her good old time getting those articles to the Senate.
Pretty much undercuts her claim that the process needed to be rushed because it was so urgent.

Sorry, not PP but this is GASLIGHTING GOP at its finest. Everyone in the world sees this administration intentionally evade, have shady Cohen/Guiliani lawyers, taunt North Korea, bully his own citizens (Teumo is the first president to call his own citizens stupid because they don’t hold his political belief). So why would this be any different??! The Gaslighting GOP is intentionally stallOmg, blocking witnesses, playing dirty, cozying up to Russia , and saying they know how they will vote without hearing evidence.

Let’s place this in other terms. You’re going through a divorce. You hear the judge say publicly, I already know who will get 100% custody of the child. Let’s just get it over with.

Did either of you have a fair trial? Should you proceed? Why would you? What if everyone taunts you and says, I thought the marriage was abusive, why are you stalling the trial?

How to you protect the integrity of the court?

When any party. ANY PARTY. Thinks this is acceptable, THEY HAVE LOST ALL INTEGRIRYY AND SHOULD NOT BE PUBLIC SERVANTS.

Perhaps a career in reality TV or international real estate development, steak-making, I dunno. But NOT congressional appointment that checks the power of a president. Congress must be as fit as the Commander In Chief.

Why would any American citizen disagree with this larger point? And why doesn’t anyone ever address it?

LOL.
Now that your rant is over, the point is that Nancy has no say in what happens in the Senate. We all know she would LOVE to control it. But, she can't.
As many have pointed out before - this is not a court of law. It is a political proceeding. McConnell is in charge here.
Nancy made an error and recognizes it. Even some in her party are calling her bluff.
So, she will deliver the articles next week.

[Anonymous]

I'm so dumb I kinda thought the minority should have gotten the chance to call witnesses.

[Anonymous]

Nancy wants the senate to put a veneer of gravitas on her shoddy impeachment articles. I’m surprised “the smartest woman in Washington” allowed it to get so jacked up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hilarious to see Democrats on this forum claiming a victory for Pelosi when she is going to end up caving without getting anything from McConnell.

For someone who is considered to be a savvy political strategist, she overplayed her hand. A trial will take place on terms that McConnell and the Republicans will decide. Trump will be exonerated and will win reelection in 2020.

The exoneration will be with zero Republican votes in favor conviction and between two and four Democratic senators who will vote to exonerate.

What a defeat for the Democrats only to be followed by Trump's reelection for another four years.

She doesn't "want" anything from McConnell. She wants to know what the rules are so she knows who to appoint as House Managers. Same thing when a little league baseball game starts, the managers have already met with the umpire(s) to go over the ground rules. Are you saying a little league game should have more integrity than an impeachment trial in the Senate?

But, impeachment was so "urgent." Trump is a "national security risk." It has to be done quickly.
Pure BS. She screwed up, didn't do her job, and is having buyer's remorse.
I posted a montage of House Democrats saying how URGENT impeachment was. Of course, it was deleted.
But, here are a few articles questioning her strategy:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-20/democrats-urgency-on-trump-s-impeachment-tested-by-pelosi-delay
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/23/impeachment_takes_a_holiday_--_starring_nancy_pelosi_142014.html
https://www.euronews.com/2019/12/22/house-democrats-undercut-themselves-withholding-impeachment-articles-vp-s-spokesman-n1106261

Hey Trumper,

I know you are brainwashed and of limited mental capacity just as your dear leader is. So I will try to use basic words (like tRump) so you can understand:

1. He asked a foreign government to interfere in our elections.
2. The 2020 election is fast approaching.
3. That ='s URGENT.
4. Moscow Mitch has pre-judged any trial so really must recuse himself.
5. ONE MORE TIME (please try to keep up) If the Senate does not remove him - I know they will not - HE WILL ALWAYS BE IMPEACHED. You apparently did not take a civics course in high school.

Hey, Friend,
I won't throw insults at you because I am apparently a kinder person than you.

1. No, he didn't.
2. True
3. If it is so damn urgent, why is Nancy holding onto the articles? You would think she would want to get them there as quickly as possibly, given the urgency.
4. No, he doesn't. You think Warren, Sanders, and all other Dem Senators haven't prejudged the trial? LOL>
5. He will make history as the first president impeached who wins reelection.

My point in the post above... in case you missed it.... is that for something that was terribly urgent during the House hearings, Nancy sure is taking her good old time getting those articles to the Senate.
Pretty much undercuts her claim that the process needed to be rushed because it was so urgent.

Sorry, not PP but this is GASLIGHTING GOP at its finest. Everyone in the world sees this administration intentionally evade, have shady Cohen/Guiliani lawyers, taunt North Korea, bully his own citizens (Teumo is the first president to call his own citizens stupid because they don’t hold his political belief). So why would this be any different??! The Gaslighting GOP is intentionally stallOmg, blocking witnesses, playing dirty, cozying up to Russia , and saying they know how they will vote without hearing evidence.

Let’s place this in other terms. You’re going through a divorce. You hear the judge say publicly, I already know who will get 100% custody of the child. Let’s just get it over with.

Did either of you have a fair trial? Should you proceed? Why would you? What if everyone taunts you and says, I thought the marriage was abusive, why are you stalling the trial?

How to you protect the integrity of the court?

When any party. ANY PARTY. Thinks this is acceptable, THEY HAVE LOST ALL INTEGRIRYY AND SHOULD NOT BE PUBLIC SERVANTS.

Perhaps a career in reality TV or international real estate development, steak-making, I dunno. But NOT congressional appointment that checks the power of a president. Congress must be as fit as the Commander In Chief.

Why would any American citizen disagree with this larger point? And why doesn’t anyone ever address it?

LOL.
Now that your rant is over, the point is that Nancy has no say in what happens in the Senate. We all know she would LOVE to control it. But, she can't.
As many have pointed out before - this is not a court of law. It is a political proceeding. McConnell is in charge here.
Nancy made an error and recognizes it. Even some in her party are calling her bluff.
So, she will deliver the articles next week.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. That is NOT the point. It is YOUR POINT that you are attempting to shove down everyone’s throat. I really want someone to address the question. Otherwise perhaps I finally understand why dem posters say there is no hope for any republican to understand or be moderate or reasonable anymore.

[Anonymous]

#FunFacts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm so dumb I kinda thought the minority should have gotten the chance to call witnesses.

They did, and several of them did testify. The President was given the opportunity to participate and declined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nancy wants the senate to put a veneer of gravitas on her shoddy impeachment articles. I’m surprised “the smartest woman in Washington” allowed it to get so jacked up.

No, she wants the Senate to conduct an actual trial and not a kangaroo court. Why do you support a kangaroo court?

[Anonymous]

Big Bird makes final decisions and has power, and influences his caucus. Big Bird took an oath to be fair and impartial doe hearings. Big Bird and all of his friends on Sesame Street publicly declare they will make a ruling decision in favour of OJ Simpson, before the hearing (not court trial) begins.

Is this a fair trail? Explain why or why not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so dumb I kinda thought the minority should have gotten the chance to call witnesses.

They did, and several of them did testify. The President was given the opportunity to participate and declined.

And if I remember correctly, the witnesses were told by the president not to respond to subpoenas ... correct?

[Anonymous]

The silence is deafening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so dumb I kinda thought the minority should have gotten the chance to call witnesses.

They did, and several of them did testify. The President was given the opportunity to participate and declined.

And if I remember correctly, the witnesses were told by the president not to respond to subpoenas ... correct?

Correct; and not a single document was turned over by the White House or any relevant agencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so dumb I kinda thought the minority should have gotten the chance to call witnesses.

They did, and several of them did testify. The President was given the opportunity to participate and declined.

And if I remember correctly, the witnesses were told by the president not to respond to subpoenas ... correct?

Correct; and not a single document was turned over by the White House or any relevant agencies.

So, I’m any party’s senate hearing for impeachment, what is the value of anyone not wanting to hear direct testimony, see historical transmission documents, emails in executive branch, look at camera footage, phone calls etc - basically map, a literal process diagram that validates each sequence of events?

What value is there to not applying an approach like this, other than hiding bad behavior amongst politicians? Is there some other angle or mo that I am missing here? Thanks for responding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big Bird makes final decisions and has power, and influences his caucus. Big Bird took an oath to be fair and impartial doe hearings. Big Bird and all of his friends on Sesame Street publicly declare they will make a ruling decision in favour of OJ Simpson, before the hearing (not court trial) begins.

Is this a fair trail? Explain why or why not.

Beaker, not Big Bird. Beaker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_(Muppet)