The Impeachment Thread

#40,002
#40,002
What a douche.


Roberts reportedly blocked Rand Paul's questions mentioning alleged whistleblower's name

Catherine Garcia

January 29, 2020, 11:59 PM EST

Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday thwarted several attempts by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to submit a question naming the alleged whistleblower whose complaint about President Trump's interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spurred the impeachment inquiry, three people familiar with the matter told The Washington Post.

Senators were given the opportunity to submit questions to the House impeachment managers and Trump's legal team, with Roberts screening the questions before reading them out loud. Paul drafted a query that included the alleged whistleblower's name, but Roberts declined to read it, two officials told the Post. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters there are Republicans "who have an interest in questions related to the whistleblower. But I suspect that won't happen. I don't think that happens. And I guess I would hope it doesn't."

For months, Paul — who is one of the loudest voices during discussions about Americans' privacy rights — has been trying to get people to publicly say the name of the whistleblower. He hinted on Wednesday that he's not giving up, telling reporters, "it may happen tomorrow."
 
#40,003
#40,003
Republicans should know who the whistleblower is. If they don't they should be told. But can they not simply refer to him/her as the whistleblower when asking questions? They don't have to share the knowledge with the public, but it seems to me the identity of the whistleblower is a key part of all of this. The Senate should know who it is so they can consider credibility on the origins of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Fun coupon VOL, tbwhhs and 2 others
#40,004
#40,004
Dershowitz:

"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."


Dershowitz's intellectual dishonesty is astounding. Harvard should disown the f-tard.

To a normal person, a public official making the performance of his or her public duties contingent upon receiving some personal gain looks like solicitation of a bribe. ("I'll put out that fire, ma'am, if you give me title to that Corvette in the driveway.") But not Professor Dershowitz.

For him, the fact that Trump was seeking help for his re-election was not incriminating; it is exculpatory. "Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," Dershowitz said. "And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

Think about this. By Dershowitz's reasoning, the next Democratic President can direct THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to work for his re-election campaign. Everything in the President's purview could be geared towards the sole purpose of him ensuring he gets a second term. This presumes that term limits would not be abolished, naturally.

Pretty sure the same thoughts were expressed by a king prior to the French Revolution. The VERY LEAST Trump could do is offer us cake!

d20483ad64edc6f94daf6932b8bc4d1e (1).jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman, Sandman 423 and tvolsfan
#40,005
#40,005
Weezer said:
Republicans should know who the whistleblower is. If they don't they should be told. But can they not simply refer to him/her as the whistleblower when asking questions? They don't have to share the knowledge with the public, but it seems to me the identity of the whistleblower is a key part of all of this. The Senate should know who it is so they can consider credibility on the origins of this.
Click to expand...

Right. They need to know who had the gall to pull the fire alarm in the burning building. Probably a witch.

Outing this person would achieve what, exactly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman, Mick and tvolsfan
#40,007
#40,007
MontyPython said:
Right. They need to know who had the gall to pull the fire alarm in the burning building. Probably a witch.

Outing this person would achieve what, exactly?
Click to expand...
A fair proceeding. Like I said, the public doesn't need to know, but those deciding should know. I'm fairly certain the Dems do know, so why shouldn't the Republicans know as well?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and dezul
#40,009
#40,009
tvolsfan said:
Arizona, like Colorado, is about to have two democratic senators.
Click to expand...
She makes a fair point. The House did a **** job on their end, and now they want the Senate to bail them out. The House rushed through, then Nancy tried to negotiate the rules the Senate would use. You have to admit that's a bunch of BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, tbwhhs, dillyo51 and 2 others
#40,011
#40,011
Weezer said:
A fair proceeding. Like I said, the public doesn't need to know, but those deciding should know. I'm fairly certain the Dems do know, so why shouldn't the Republicans know as well?
Click to expand...

Yet, the Chief Justice of SCOTUS rejected outing the WB. What does that tell you?

Also, let's presume the person is a "Never Trumper". So what? Does this change the material facts gathered AFTER the WB pulled the alarm?

Nope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan and Mick
#40,012
#40,012
MontyPython said:
Yet, the Chief Justice of SCOTUS rejected outing the WB. What does that tell you?

Also, let's presume the person is a "Never Trumper". So what? Does this change the material facts gathered AFTER the WB pulled the alarm?

Nope.
Click to expand...
Rejected publicly outing, which I've agreed is not necessary.

And if the person is a "Never Trumper", would that not lead credence to this being political?

I think it matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#40,013
#40,013
MontyPython said:
Yet, the Chief Justice of SCOTUS rejected outing the WB. What does that tell you?

Also, let's presume the person is a "Never Trumper". So what? Does this change the material facts gathered AFTER the WB pulled the alarm?

Nope.
Click to expand...

It does when the WB was shown biased prior to the Ukraine phone call.

"Republicans have sought more information on the whistleblower ever since the intelligence community's internal watchdog found several indicators that the person might have a political bias. Fox News has previously reported the whistleblower is a registered Democrat and had a prior work history with a senior Democrat running for president."

"The whistleblower's attorney, Mark Zaid, openly admitted back in 2017 that a "coup" had started against the president from within the administration, and that CNN's coverage would play a "key role" in the effort."

"He also openly solicited intelligence community members to help impeach and "get rid" of Trump, years before Trump's call with Urkaine's leader that triggered the current impeachment proceedings."

"Additionally, Zaid acknowledged that the whistleblower had contact with a prominent Democratic presidential contender, amid reporters that he had served closely with Joe Biden when he was vice president. Trump's alleged pressure on Ukraine to investigate Biden is at the center of the current probe."

Justice Roberts blocks Sen. Paul from naming whistleblower, source says -- and Paul may force the issue
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#40,014
#40,014
Weezer said:
Rejected publicly outing, which I've agreed is not necessary.

And if the person is a "Never Trumper", would that not lead credence to this being political?

I think it matters.
Click to expand...

Let's assume the worst: WB is a Never Trumper. Hates him. So. What? How does this change the material facts uncovered after he blew the whistle?

This is a rhetorical question, guys. The answer is it doesn't, of course. If you disagree, please expound. Would love to read that line of reasoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#40,018
#40,018
MontyPython said:
Yet, the Chief Justice of SCOTUS rejected outing the WB. What does that tell you?

Also, let's presume the person is a "Never Trumper". So what? Does this change the material facts gathered AFTER the WB pulled the alarm?

Nope.
Click to expand...
Everyone knows it's about the smear of the whistle blower and nothing more. Except for the hardened trump supporters like Weezer. The GOP knowes who he/she is and are just trying to publically identify him/her.
 
#40,019
#40,019
MontyPython said:
Let's assume the worst: WB is a Never Trumper. Hates him. So. What? How does this change the material facts uncovered after he blew the whistle?

This is a rhetorical question, guys. The answer is it doesn't, of course. If you disagree, please expound. Would love to read that line of reasoning.
Click to expand...
So if his motive for coming forward was to help Biden win the election, that doesn't matter?

And FTR, while I think what Trump did is unethical, I don't think it rises to removal from office. This whole thing has been a political hit job, something the impeachment process was never meant to be.

The way to get him out of office is to vote him out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dillyo51
#40,020
#40,020
Weezer said:
Rejected publicly outing, which I've agreed is not necessary.

And if the person is a "Never Trumper", would that not lead credence to this being political?

I think it matters.
Click to expand...
If your trying to disqualify everyone that has an unfavorable opinion of Trump, you need to disqualify everyone.
 
#40,021
#40,021
Weezer said:
So if his motive for coming forward was to help Biden win the election, that doesn't matter?

And FTR, while I think what Trump did is unethical, I don't think it rises to removal from office. This whole thing has been a political hit job, something the impeachment process was never meant to be.

The way to get him out of office is to vote him out.
Click to expand...

So the President is breaking the law for the sole purpose of rigging the election. And your solution to "fix" this is to... hold a rigged election.

*sigh*

Again. Please explain how this would change material facts uncovered after the WB reported it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#40,022
#40,022
Mick said:
Everyone knows it's about the smear of the whistle blower and nothing more. Except for the hardened trump supporters like Weezer. The GOP knowes who he/she is and are just trying to publically identify him/her.
Click to expand...
lmao Still spouting your nonsense. Gotta keep up with those Dem talking points.
 
#40,023
#40,023
Mick said:
If your trying to disqualify everyone that has an unfavorable opinion of Trump, you need to disqualify everyone.
Click to expand...
I don't have a favorable opinion of Trump, but I do believe the process should be handled in a fair and judicial way, something the Dems oppose in this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#40,025
#40,025
Weezer said:
I don't have a favorable opinion of Trump, but I do believe the process should be handled in a fair and judicial way, something the Dems oppose in this case.
Click to expand...
As pointed out it's not a judicial process and that is why Trump is hiding behind the Senate GOP trying to publically out the whistleblower and rejecting fact and firsthand witnesses and documents. But yes if I was a partisan bleating sheep I would be calling for the identity of the whistleblower too..
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top