The Impeachment Thread

#5,954
#5,954
Grand Vol said:
Any of the forum mouthbreathers want to take a stab at why the Democrats are openly denying Republicans or their staffers the opportunity to ask questions of potential witnesses for an impeachment inquiry?
Click to expand...

It probably has something to do with an Oh-**** moment and the fact that they realized they'd opened up a Congressional inquiry into US-Ukrainian corruption and election improprieties. It's been apparent for a couple of years now that, if you want to know what the Dems are guilty of, you just listen to what they accuse Trump of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, hUTch2002, Orangeburst and 3 others
#5,955
#5,955
Here's a fun conspiracy theory I saw somewhere else...

They are trying to draw Pence into this as well. They end up trying to impeach them both. They succeed.

President Nancy Pelosi waiting in the winds. She appoints Hillary as Vice President. Pelosi steps down for "reasons of health and family."

President Hillary Clinton. Coup complete.

The Presidential Succession Act is a little murky on the office of acting versus Senate approved. If a person had a previous Senate approval for a Cabinet level post, they are eligible for Presidential duties. It doesn't state when specifically the Senate could approve, just that the Senate had to approve the nomination.
 
#5,957
#5,957
I said Trump is throwing gasoline on a grease fire in your kitchen and everything you’ve said in response amounts to: “well but there was already a fire.” That’s not realistic. That’s asinine. That’s changing the subject to avoid having to reconcile his behavior with your other beliefs. You started with a But Obama* and now it’s a whatabout the media.

I’m starting to think you guys have some mild psychological disorder. You want to fit in with your tribe so you pretend to share all of their beliefs, but it’s not genuine. None of you know why the things you believe are good, so you can’t reconcile those beliefs with Trump’s antithetical behaviors. But you also can’t criticize Trump, because that’ll definitely get you ostracized, so you make these feeble attempts to change the subject.

Except the whole tribe is doing the same exact thing. You’re all part of the same big circle jerk, except none of you is really into dudes.


37L1 said:
No matter what you try to do to make it easy for a whistle blower to come forward, there will always be a negative price for him/her to pay. It had nothing to do with "minimizing Trump's impact on the calculus." You are also over looking the media's role in this "calculus." They also contribute to the "circus" that any whistle blower has to factor in regarding coming forward. You don't think they will try as hard as they can to break the story about who the whistle blower is? Do they deserve to be prosecuted? It has everything to do with the courage and/or motivation of the whistle blower. I'm being realistic about "the calculus." So will most people who are in that situation. My bet is that today, most people in government, will put their own self interest first, keep their head down and their mouth shut. Or leave instead of becoming a target, for politicians and the media.



Apparently you can't answer a question or two.



Where did I refer to "but Obama" as you claim?



In your opinion, are Snowden and/or Manning heroes? Yes or no, will suffice.
Click to expand...

Calls to cancel New York Times subscriptions emerge over report identifying Trump whistleblower

NYT got blasted by their own journalists and outsiders for posting a story about the whistleblower.

Also: I’ve answered your first question.
RockyTop85 said:
Telling on yourself, with that response.



Snowden’s prosecution was appropriate. He was not a hero.



There were procedures that he could have followed before the nuclear option that he chose. There were things included in his disclosures that arguably put people in danger. Redactions could have been made if it had been handled through appropriate channels. It was reckless. He had some good intentions, and I tend to agree with his opinion that what he was seeing was repugnant, but the ends don’t justify the means and he went about it in entirely the wrong way, doing more harm to his cause than good.



He is one of two things that that whistleblower protections are designed to prevent. Which is why I’m bitching about Trump publicly trying to unmask the whistleblower and threatening punishment.
Click to expand...

I’ll be more than happy to answer the other one after you’ve asked all the super important follow-ups that merited multiple posts whining about me not explicitly answering a question to which I implicitly answered a half-dozen Times.
 
#5,960
#5,960
Grand Vol said:
Here's a fun conspiracy theory I saw somewhere else...

They are trying to draw Pence into this as well. They end up trying to impeach them both. They succeed.

President Nancy Pelosi waiting in the winds. She appoints Hillary as Vice President. Pelosi steps down for "reasons of health and family."

President Hillary Clinton. Coup complete.

The Presidential Succession Act is a little murky on the office of acting versus Senate approved. If a person had a previous Senate approval for a Cabinet level post, they are eligible for Presidential duties. It doesn't state when specifically the Senate could approve, just that the Senate had to approve the nomination.
Click to expand...
The Vice President is an elected position.

Pretty sure you can’t just appoint one because you feel like it.
 
#5,962
#5,962
RockyTop85 said:
The Vice President is an elected position.
Click to expand...

Not always, no. Vice Presidents can be appointed and require Senate approval just like a Cabinet post. Hence President Gerald Ford who was never elected to the office (either VP or POTUS) at all.

However, again, the Succession Act is vague. Right now, Secretary of DHS Kevin McAleenan is possibly eligible for the spot (if all hell broke loose) since he has had Senate confirmation before now for his previous position. Again, the law doesn't state which Senate has to confirm, just that the Senate could have a previous approval for a candidate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NorthDallas40 and Zues1
#5,963
#5,963
Grand Vol said:
Any of the forum mouthbreathers want to take a stab at why the Democrats are openly denying Republicans or their staffers the opportunity to ask questions of potential witnesses for an impeachment inquiry?
Click to expand...

I see you're ignoring reality again. Darn facts.

“We were told that only a single Republican professional staffer from the Foreign Affairs Committee will be allowed to attend while the majority will have two,” Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the committee’s ranking member, continued.
 
#5,965
#5,965
Orange_Crush said:
It probably has something to do with an Oh-**** moment and the fact that they realized they'd opened up a Congressional inquiry into US-Ukrainian corruption and election improprieties. It's been apparent for a couple of years now that, if you want to know what the Dems are guilty of, you just listen to what they accuse Trump of.
Click to expand...

^^^This^^^

Glenn Beck has the truth about Ukraine today. Sirius XM 111.
 
#5,967
#5,967
MontyPython said:
I see you're ignoring reality again. Darn facts.

“We were told that only a single Republican professional staffer from the Foreign Affairs Committee will be allowed to attend while the majority will have two,” Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the committee’s ranking member, continued.
Click to expand...
Geez-us...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hayezb, Orangeburst and NorthDallas40
#5,968
#5,968
MontyPython said:
I see you're ignoring reality again. Darn facts.

“We were told that only a single Republican professional staffer from the Foreign Affairs Committee will be allowed to attend while the majority will have two,” Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the committee’s ranking member, continued.
Click to expand...
LMFAO! Triple down on ignoring Repubs cannot ask any questions! 🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1, Orange_Crush, Hayezb and 1 other person
#5,971
#5,971
Grand Vol said:
Here's a fun conspiracy theory I saw somewhere else...

They are trying to draw Pence into this as well. They end up trying to impeach them both. They succeed.

President Nancy Pelosi waiting in the winds. She appoints Hillary as Vice President. Pelosi steps down for "reasons of health and family."

President Hillary Clinton. Coup complete.

The Presidential Succession Act is a little murky on the office of acting versus Senate approved. If a person had a previous Senate approval for a Cabinet level post, they are eligible for Presidential duties. It doesn't state when specifically the Senate could approve, just that the Senate had to approve the nomination.
Click to expand...

Who is they? Trump?

 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#5,972
#5,972
RockyTop85 said:
It technically is, but apparently Ford had a Vice President confirmed so apparently the conclusion I drew from that isn’t accurate.
Click to expand...

It's a position that is indirectly elected that can also be filled through appointment and congressional confirmation.

It's all in the 25th amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#5,973
#5,973
NorthDallas40 said:
LMFAO! Triple down on ignoring Repubs cannot ask any questions! 🤣
Click to expand...

Dude. What part of this is so vexing for you? Neither GOP nor Democratic house members will be asking questions. Rather, 2 Democratic staff attorneys and 1 Republican staff attorney will do that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top