Page 103 of 117 FirstFirst ... 35393101102103104105113 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,030 of 1166

Thread: Impeachment?

  1. #1021
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,181
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    I don’t see how that would work. How do you shame the shameless? He would simply think he had been handed another victim card to play.
    Very true!

  2. #1022
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    As part of the question and answer in today's impeachment trial it was revealed that the NSC is now finishing up review of the manuscript and had flagged multiple confidential and top secret details which must be resolved before authorization to publish. Their letter to that affect was dated today.


    It would appear that Senator Graham was correct in suggesting use of the SCIF, otherwise they would have looked foolish allowing the Democrats to reveal top secret information for political gain.
    The point is not for political gain but to show how corrupt the current president is. He has lied about the issue. Grounds for impeachment!

  3. #1023
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,817
    Quote Originally Posted by frugal-one View Post
    The point is not for political gain but to show how corrupt the current president is. He has lied about the issue. Grounds for impeachment!
    Review of top secret information in a public venue would be for political gain. JP1 protested Lindsey Graham's suggestion that it be done in a secure environment as a "coverup". I think it's responsible, unfulfilling for some, but ultimately responsible.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  4. #1024
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    5,135
    Given the White House’s history of classifying stuff not for security’s sake but for the purpose of hiding inconvenient information I’m not surprised to learn that Bolton’s lawyer has accused the White House of corrupting the vetting process of the book by sharing it with people outside the NSC’s records management division.

    If I were a betting man I’d put my money on Bolton in this fight and that the book will be available, with minimal if any changes, well before the November election.

  5. #1025
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,817
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    If I were a betting man I’d put my money on Bolton in this fight and that the book will be available, with minimal if any changes, well before the November election.
    I'm not aware of any reason it can't be available by it's original March publishing date, the editing process shouldn't take long. If the House had held the impeachment material for two months instead of one they probably could have had a manuscript, if not an advance copy of the book, to review on camera.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  6. #1026
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    5,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    I'm not aware of any reason it can't be available by it's original March publishing date, the editing process shouldn't take long. If the House had held the impeachment material for two months instead of one they probably could have had a manuscript, if not an advance copy of the book, to review on camera.
    Or the senate could just call a witness to their "trial" and ask him what happened. But that would involve actually being interested in getting to the truth which would kind of defeat their efforts at a coverup.

  7. #1027
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,817
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Or the senate could just call a witness to their "trial" and ask him what happened. But that would involve actually being interested in getting to the truth which would kind of defeat their efforts at a coverup.
    I guess you'll have to wait till Friday or so to see if witnesses will be called. I think the real question is whether potential witnesses will be limited to those already introduced in the House impeachment inquiry, which was the case in the Clinton impeachment trial, or whether new witnesses will be allowed. I'm guessing Republicans will be accused of a "coverup" either way.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  8. #1028
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    5,135
    If I were to guess, I'd say that the statistic of 70-75% of American voters wanting witnesses in the impeachment trial shows that 1) voters are capable of understanding the difference between an impeachment based on someone lying about an extramarital sexual event vs. an impeachment of someone accused of using the power of the presidency to go after a political opponent and rig the upcoming election and 2) only hard-core forever-republicans give a crap about following the random, not constitutionally-required precedent of the Clinton impeachment structure to the letter. Considering that even the most judgey of other people's sex lives, Evangelical Christians, clearly aren't concerned about presidential sexual indiscretion (they did, after all, happily vote for the "grab em by the p.... guy) I'm not particularly surprised.

    At this point the republicans in the senate have painted themselves into a corner. They don't really have any good options. Probably their best option is to have Bolton testify so that the perception of a blatant coverup is significantly reduced. But the risk is that moscow mitch loses control of everything, because heaven only knows what else will come out into the open once he starts talking.

  9. #1029
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    5,135
    And now we know The Dersh's grand, mind blowing legal theory. It's that the president can do absolutely anything in pursuit of reelection and should not be impeached for those actions. I wonder how much money one has to be paid to be able to say something like that without laughing?

  10. #1030
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    5,719
    Will voters rise up in righteous anger over which witnesses the Senate chooses to call? That might depend on the numbers of the righteously angry who vote in any given Senator’s state.

    Will impeachment be a big issue in any given voter’s mind come November, to the extent it might be a deciding factor in their vote? Will we have “moved on” by then?

    The sort of people who say “Moscow Mitch” made up their minds years ago. Will the needle be much moved by the Ukraine phone call? I have trouble believing that.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •