Doc Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 43 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Like when? Just, whenever? The announcement of an investigation into his political rival Russiagate. When was the announcement made? Did I miss it?
John Adams Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 Interesting political manuever here if Nancy can deny Trump's Senate acquittal victory lap. The Dems get to say Trump got impeached and they can run on that simple fact. The correct rebuttal that the House didn't send the articles to the Senate for the trial, where Trump would have gotten off--That's not a good soundbyte.
Deranged Rhino Posted December 19, 2019 Author Posted December 19, 2019 It's a dumb political strategy. It's a sign of weakness, and further undercuts the norms of our institutions. But that's what the left does. Destroy that which they cannot rule. 6
Warren Zevon Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, John Adams said: Interesting political manuever here if Nancy can deny Trump's Senate acquittal victory lap. The Dems get to say Trump got impeached and they can run on that simple fact. The correct rebuttal that the House didn't send the articles to the Senate for the trial, where Trump would have gotten off--That's not a good soundbyte. Nancy has zero to lose by holding the articles in the house until McConnell and Schumer agree to Senate rules for a trial.
DC Tom Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, John Adams said: Interesting political manuever here if Nancy can deny Trump's Senate acquittal victory lap. The Dems get to say Trump got impeached and they can run on that simple fact. The correct rebuttal that the House didn't send the articles to the Senate for the trial, where Trump would have gotten off--That's not a good soundbyte. What's more, they can say the impeached, but the Senate didn't acquit. They can "imply guilt" on a technicality. bull####? Of course. But it's a layer of bull#### consistent with all the other bull#### Congress has pulled over the past seven years, and it's worked so far. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted December 19, 2019 Author Posted December 19, 2019 She has plenty to lose -- or would if she cared about the country, the constitution, and the republic like she claims. Holding on to them does nothing but divide, and further erode the confidence in the institutions of power among the people. So of course you cheer it. Like you cheered on illegal spying and investigating political rivals for three years breathlessly so long as it's your team doing it. 2
DC Tom Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Gary Busey said: Nancy has zero to lose by holding the articles in the house until McConnell and Schumer agree to Senate rules for a trial. Not entirely true. She's trying to influence Senate procedure, which, if it came down to a court decision, she will lose heavily. But that's a matter of constitutional procedure that few would care about, much less understand. And she's not waiting for McConnell and Schumer to agree - she's waiting for rules that are fair to Democrats. She said so last night. 1
Warren Zevon Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Holding on to them does nothing but divide, and further erode the confidence in the institutions of power among the people. Sending them to the Senate where McConnell as juror is working hand in hand with Trump the defendant also further erodes said confidence.
DC Tom Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: She has plenty to lose -- or would if she cared about the country, the constitution, and the republic like she claims. Holding on to them does nothing but divide, and further erode the confidence in the institutions of power among the people. And she has nothing to lose by that. Her party's the one sharpening the guillotines. 1
Warren Zevon Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: Not entirely true. She's trying to influence Senate procedure, which, if it came down to a court decision, she will lose heavily. But that's a matter of constitutional procedure that few would care about, much less understand. And she's not waiting for McConnell and Schumer to agree - she's waiting for rules that are fair to Democrats. She said so last night. I don't think Schumer will agree with McConnell until the rules are "fair." 1
DC Tom Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 Just now, Gary Busey said: Sending them to the Senate where McConnell as juror is working hand in hand with Trump the defendant also further erodes said confidence. If House Democrats didn't want a partisan impeachment, they shouldn't have pursued a partisan impeachment. You're really blaming McConnell for this? Again: Democrats set the precedent, Republicans are following it, and Democrats are shocked that their precedent applies to people other than themselves. 4 1
Deranged Rhino Posted December 19, 2019 Author Posted December 19, 2019 The DNC leadership set the unfair precedent in the House. ***** them. Just now, DC Tom said: If House Democrats didn't want a partisan impeachment, they shouldn't have pursued a partisan impeachment. You're really blaming McConnell for this? Again: Democrats set the precedent, Republicans are following it, and Democrats are shocked that their precedent applies to people other than themselves. He has a very small, small, mind. And it's been broken. 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: And she has nothing to lose by that. Her party's the one sharpening the guillotines. True -- but she'll lose her speakership. And the left will lose the House. Because all they had to do was NOT be crazy -- and they just couldn't do it. 1
DC Tom Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Gary Busey said: I don't think Schumer will agree with McConnell until the rules are "fair." Of course. Fair...for Democrats. Because that's the Democrats' definition of "fairness." It's the definition they established ten years ago: "We're driving this bus. Republicans can come along for the ride, but they have to sit in back." You insist in acting like these actions exist in a vacuum...there's decades of both parties explaining exactly what they intend to do. Hell, this impeachment is nothing more than revenge for Clinton, using Newt Gingrich's tactics. 2
Warren Zevon Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 (edited) Just now, DC Tom said: Of course. Fair. Yup Edited December 19, 2019 by Gary Busey
DC Tom Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: True -- but she'll lose her speakership. And the left will lose the House. Did you hear her speak this morning? She doesn't deserve a speakership. They'll just give it to Robespierre Ocasio-Cortez. Just now, Gary Busey said: Yup Quote the whole post, #######. 2
Deranged Rhino Posted December 19, 2019 Author Posted December 19, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: Quote the whole post, #######. That requires him to be honest. His entire posting history down here proves that he's anything but honest. Or smart. 3
John Adams Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: She has plenty to lose -- or would if she cared about the country, the constitution, and the republic like she claims. Holding on to them does nothing but divide, and further erode the confidence in the institutions of power among the people. So of course you cheer it. Link? 22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Like you cheered on illegal spying Link? 22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: and investigating political rivals for three years breathlessly so long as it's your team doing it. Link?
Deranged Rhino Posted December 19, 2019 Author Posted December 19, 2019 On 2/16/2017 at 6:25 AM, Benjamin Franklin said: This topic is leaking into 20 threads. My question now echoes from Watergate, "What did the president know and when did he know it?" Also want more info on what Flynn discussed and what is the nature of the Trump campaign contacts with Russian intel. I might have contacted Russian intel when I picked up my rental car today. +100s of pages, over multiple threads, of you and your alts sneering at the very idea that it was a crooked investigation, led by a cabal of high ranking DOJ/FBI/CIA officials. You were proven 100% wrong. Every step of the way. "What did the president know and when did he know it" -- echoing Watergate. You're a clown.
John Adams Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 24 minutes ago, DC Tom said: What's more, they can say the impeached, but the Senate didn't acquit. They can "imply guilt" on a technicality. Yup. Politically shrewd. Scummy, but shrewd. And they can add to the articles when Trump does the next dumb thing. Very ugly way to politic in the same way messing with the Garland nomination was dirty pool. Both set a very bad precedent.
Recommended Posts