The Impeachment Thread

[1972 Grad]

He will be asked for his recollections about the ommissions, but sure, his opinion is as good as yours or mine on what he thought would be legal.

Vindman had to go back and correct one of what he called an omission, when it was found in the transcript.

 

[RockyTop85]

The argument over McCain is the only one you have ever won. All of the rest you pull this same maneuver, you never answer a question. A simple question.

In this case I can understand, you have no ****ing idea what the answer is yet you just want the rules and law followed. You don't know if they are or not but your still going to whine.

LMAO the rant would have been better if I hadn't just told you what the rule was.

Pretty sure Taylor said exactly that. And Mulvaney. and maybe one other?

If any had said that it would have been leaked and blasted verbatim over the networks day and night.

You can’t be serious.

Mulvaney:


Taylor:

View attachment 234917
Republicans Still Say No Quid Pro Quo After Damning Taylor Testimony

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/bill-taylor-statement-5-explosive-lines/index.html?r=https://duckduckgo.com/

Top diplomat tells lawmakers Ukraine aid was directly tied to investigations

Every major media source has an article like the three above. Except whatever you read, apparently.

 

[tvolsfan]

Quote from Alex Moe NBC News : "He (Vindman) is not a court stenographer, and he didn't have a recording, just notes that he took." What makes that any more accurate than everybody else?

It doesn’t automatically. But Trump has a clear incentive to remove damning information.

 

[Velo Vol]

If Schiff says no to any R testimony , it is as he says. He his the de facto decider.

Who do the Republicans want to testify?

 

[Stew Cook]

Vindman had to go back and correct one of what he called an omission, when it was found in the transcript.

I'm glad he's keeping them honest.

 

[hog88]

Your source had to be a dem then, right?

Only friends I got.

 

[Sandman 423]

One of the most accurate note takers on the phone call testified important things were left out.

Adam, is that you?

 

[Mick]

The House Intelligence Committee includes 13 dems and 9 repubs. If Schiff says no to any R testimony , it is as he says. He his the de facto decider.

edit: I have not looked at the other committees.

Yep. Same as when the Dems wanted to issue subpoenas when it was controlled by the R's.

 

[RikidyBones]

Who do the Republicans want to testify?

Apparently theres two but the Rep didnt reveal who on FoxNews a few mins ago. I cant recall who it was, I was doing something else.

 

[hog88]

LMAO the rant would have been better if I hadn't just told you what the rule was.

You gave the statute, not what the rule is.

 

[Mick]

Adam, is that you?

No, it's me Mick. Mick Mulvaney. Quid Pro Quo is what we do.

 

[VolnJC]

 

[1972 Grad]

But....but.....the Ukrainian dude didn't agree with the policy and how it might affect bi-partisanship support for Ukraine.

 

[GVF]

He will be asked for his recollections about the ommissions, but sure, his opinion is as good as yours or mine on what he thought would be legal.

True in general. Except that his recollection of the phone call as sworn testimony says nothing illegal. So, in a nutshell, since we don't have an actual recording, only differing note taking accounts, are people that expressed "concerns", and people that said nothing to see here. And that isn't really anything to base an impeachment procedure on, unless have stated from day 1 that you will do whatever it takes to get rid of Trump. So, here we are.

In a Criminal or Civil court, this would have already been thrown out. Even on Law & Order. In a monkey court.....

 

[Mick]

Quote from Alex Moe NBC News : "He (Vindman) is not a court stenographer, and he didn't have a recording, just notes that he took." What makes that any more accurate than everybody else?

He has nothing to hide. It wasn't him talking about investigating the bidens.

 

[1972 Grad]

True in general. Except that his recollection of the phone call as sworn testimony says nothing illegal. So, in a nutshell, since we don't have an actual recording, only differing note taking accounts, are people that expressed "concerns", and people that said nothing to see here. And that isn't really anything to base an impeachment procedure on, unless have stated from day 1 that you will do whatever it takes to get rid of Trump. So, here we are.

In a Criminal or Civil court, this would have already been thrown out. Even on Law & Order. In a monkey court.....

How about in a kangaroo court?

 

[evillawyer]

John Gotti: I didn't see nothing illegal. Vinny just tickled him a bit for talking too much.
Judge: Welp, there we go. Gotti didn't see nothing illegal. Murder trial is over.

 

[Mick]

True in general. Except that his recollection of the phone call as sworn testimony says nothing illegal. So, in a nutshell, since we don't have an actual recording, only differing note taking accounts, are people that expressed "concerns", and people that said nothing to see here. And that isn't really anything to base an impeachment procedure on, unless have stated from day 1 that you will do whatever it takes to get rid of Trump. So, here we are.

In a Criminal or Civil court, this would have already been thrown out. Even on Law & Order. In a monkey court.....

This is not court.

 

[hog88]

@RockyTop85

Simple question. To the best of your legal knowledge, can the DOJ hand over grand jury information to congress if requested?

 

[VolStrom]

I'm sick of this crap. I'll just cast my vote and hope that if Trump loses that the republicans win the house so we can do this sh!t over and over and over again.

 

[RockyTop85]

Come on. Those are the people who hold cited positions in the Intelligence Committee.

The ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee (Intelligence is Nunes), is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair, (which is Schiff), to require as deemed necessary . . .

Are you referencing that the other 4 Committees involved in the "inquiry" (Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means) as a way to minimize Schiff's influence on the process? If so, why didn't you just say so?

Because now you’ve read it and there’s one less person here that will spend the next few months continuously making erroneous statements about what it says.

 

[GVF]

How about in a kangaroo court?

Nah. They can only jump around. Monkeys can climb trees and peel bananas.

 

[RockyTop85]

@RockyTop85

Simple question. To the best of your legal knowledge, can the DOJ hand over grand jury information to congress if requested?

Yes when the exceptions set out in 6(e) apply.

 

[GVF]

This is not court.

Which is exactly why there will be no trial in the Senate.

 

[Stew Cook]

Two things we can conclude.

1. He didn't think anything was illegal at the time of the call.

2. The "transcript" which was actually a "partial readout", was accurate, minus the ommissions. (I guess the notion it was a "word for word" transcript died a quick death)