Impeachment is DOA

[Skinny Tire AH]

To add;

Nancy Pelosi may be a dipshit, but she's a wise politician. She won't allow this to go to a vote, two reasons.

1. She understands this is getting politically risky and she WILL NOT allow this to risk her losing her speakership over.

2. She FULLY understands that if it goes to the Senate, the Senators running in the Democrat primary cannot campaign. That is risking the Presidency. So ask yourself, is she willing to risk; The House, the Presidency and the probability of losing more Senate seats, over an Impeachment that is DOA in the Senate?

So if you wish to just pay me now and save further humiliation, I'll accept that.

 

[Grandpa mac]

$100 says the House impeaches Trump. Only question is whether they wait for evidence from McGahn/Bolton/Mulvaney and release of taxes or jump now.

Ok, Nganga- I’d have credited you with more sense than to take this bet but glad to see someone on your side step up. So the bet is on whether Trump is impeached in the House. What time frame do you want? Obviously the Dems would like McGahn, Mulvaney, and Bolton to testify but it could be June before SCOTUS compels that testimony. I think it likely, though not certain, that the House will impeach based on what they have and ask Justice Roberts to compel whatever testimony they require in the Senate hearing. So what time frame do you want for this bet?

And to your question, Russia is and always has been on the table for impeachment. Mueller laid out the groundwork for multiple charges of obstruction of justice against Trump in his report and said that due to DOJ policy preventing the prosecution of a Sitting President the Constitution provides another remedy. He was talking about using his evidence for an impeachment and I suspect we’ll see one Russia related obstruction charge with the impeachment. But if McGahn is compelled to testify (and this appears likely eventually) then it is also likely that Bolton and
Mulvaney who have much to offer vis a vis Ukraine will also testify. This of course will be a
Disaster for Trump.

 

[Grandpa mac]

To add;

Nancy Pelosi may be a dipshit, but she's a wise politician. She won't allow this to go to a vote, two reasons.

1. She understands this is getting politically risky and she WILL NOT allow this to risk her losing her speakership over.

2. She FULLY understands that if it goes to the Senate, the Senators running in the Democrat primary cannot campaign. That is risking the Presidency. So ask yourself, is she willing to risk; The House, the Presidency and the probability of losing more Senate seats, over an Impeachment that is DOA in the Senate?

So if you wish to just pay me now and save further humiliation, I'll accept that.

Nancy was all in the moment Trump released the Ukraine transcript and the hearings have only affirmed Dems justification for impeachment.

Do you want to pick from the list of honest deplorables (yourself included) I said could hold our money?

 

[Grandpa mac]

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

 

[SNiC Jet]

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Curious.....Who or what do atheist "Give their Thanks too" for their good fortunes and blessings on this day that is set aside to give thanks?

 

[Grandpa mac]

Curious.....Who or what do atheist "Give their Thanks too" for their good fortunes and blessings on this day that is set aside to give thanks?

The whim of fate that allowed me to be born healthy and talented in the most progressive and scientifically informed time and in a country which though imperfect is continually striving to better itself.

 

[Grandpa mac]

And whoever cooks the turkey.

 

[SNiC Jet]

The whim of fate that allowed me to be born.....

Please expand on this.... The part where you say "the whim of faith that allowed me to be born" sounds like a reference to an entity existing on a higher plane.
Also, you might also want to thank your mother for not aborting you....
Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[RVR SWPR]

nganga,careful here betting with GMAC.The moron is baiting you with his ignorance that the house vote in favor of impeachment will in fact be considered in his mind a win regarding your wager.
Trump wants a trial in the Senate,Pelosi has now realized Trump wants a Senate Trial.She knows Trump will not accept “Censure”.

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

Keeping this in mind...How does the go about consistency and hobgoblins?

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-facts-behind-obamas-executive-privilege-claim

https://www.rcfp.org/journals/fast-furious-and-executive-pr/

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

nganga,careful here betting with GMAC.The moron is baiting you with his ignorance that the house vote in favor of impeachment will in fact be considered in his mind a win regarding your wager.
Trump wants a trial in the Senate,Pelosi has now realized Trump wants a Senate Trial.She knows Trump will not accept “Censure”.

I know exactly what I bet on.

 

[530RL]

At the peak of the Clinton impeachment only 29% of Americans thought impeachment was appropriate.

In Trump’s case, the numbers are dramatically higher.

I don’t know if they will impeach or not, but it is pretty clear to me that Democrats have nothing politically to lose by going forward with impeachment. Trump supporters don’t elect democrats and will never support middle political positions. So you can’t lose what you don’t have and never will have.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-think-trump-committed-an-impeachable-offense/

Secondly, the democrats practically have nothing else to do. There is a logjam of legislation passed out of the Democratic house being held up by the Republicans in the Senate so there is no practical purpose of democrats passing even more legislation or “doing their job”. Their job of passing legislation is fully completed until such time there is movement in the Senate. Otherwise, they have all the time they want to fuck with Trump identical in purpose to how Republicans fucked with Obama and Clinton.

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

At the peak of the Clinton impeachment only 29% of Americans thought impeachment was appropriate.

In Trump’s case, the numbers are dramatically higher.

I don’t know if they will impeach or not, but it is pretty clear to me that Democrats have nothing politically to lose by going forward with impeachment. Trump supporters don’t elect democrats and will never support middle political positions. So you can’t lose what you don’t have and never will have.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-think-trump-committed-an-impeachable-offense/

Secondly, the democrats practically have nothing else to do. There is a logjam of legislation passed out of the Democratic house being held up by the Republicans in the Senate so there is no practical purpose of democrats passing even more legislation or “doing their job”. Their job of passing legislation is fully completed until such time there is movement in the Senate. Otherwise, they have all the time they want to fuck with Trump identical in purpose to how Republicans fucked with Obama and Clinton.

I think that the 29% is misleading juxtaposed against today's political rift. The lines are drawn and the middle, who decided elections has become a smaller number (in my opinion). I used to believe that elections were 35% far left, decided, period and 35% the opposite, leaving the middle at 30% undecided.

I think its more like 40-42% on either side, leaving a smaller and more important undecided.

 

[530RL]

I think that the 29% is misleading juxtaposed against today's political rift. The lines are drawn and the middle, who decided elections has become a smaller number (in my opinion). I used to believe that elections were 35% far left, decided, period and 35% the opposite, leaving the middle at 30% undecided.

I think its more like 40-42% on either side, leaving a smaller and more important undecided.

The data shows the opposite. Both parties voter registrations as a percentage of total registrations are falling with independents picking up the growth in registrations.

The parties and their loyalists may be much more divided, but many people are increasingly in the middle and not firmly with either party. Many in the middle voted both for Obama twice and then for Trump. And then voted for a Democratic majority in the House.

The middle is larger, and the middle is fluid from one national election to the next.

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

The data shows the opposite. Both parties voter registrations as a percentage of total registrations are falling with independents picking up the growth in registrations.

The parties and their loyalists may be much more divided, but many people are increasingly in the middle and not firmly with either party. Many in the middle voted both for Obama twice and then for Trump. And then voted for a Democratic majority in the House.

The middle is larger, and the middle is fluid from one national election to the next.

I have no reason to dispute your data. However it seems to me that more people, on both sides are firmly dug in. No amount of talking, news, current events, seems to move the needle.

 

[Grandpa mac]

I have no reason to dispute your data. However it seems to me that more people, on both sides are firmly dug in. No amount of talking, news, current events, seems to move the needle.

Some of that can probably be laid at the door of gerrymandering, talk radio, Virtually unregulated campaign finance, and other phenomena that ensure that the most ideologically pure candidates of both parties win primaries and subsequent elections. The loss of moderates particularly on the right certainly polarized everything. Even earmarks for spending as corrupt as they appeared presented an opportunity to work across the aisle which has disappeared. Straight majority judicial confirmations, begun by my side when McConnell stonewalled virtually every Obama nomination but taken to the ultimate level now under McConnell may be the worst of all because it will promote extremist judges of both sides who will have lifetime appointments. The court needs judges like Garland and Roberts and Kennedy who are close enough to the middle to occasionally surprise us with their independence.

 

[Grandpa mac]

nganga,careful here betting with GMAC.The moron is baiting you with his ignorance that the house vote in favor of impeachment will in fact be considered in his mind a win regarding your wager.
Trump wants a trial in the Senate,Pelosi has now realized Trump wants a Senate Trial.She knows Trump will not accept “Censure”.

I don’t think so. Nganga and I are both well aware, as evidenced by his own follow up comment, that impeachment occurs in the House. We are not betting on the ultimate resolution of this as even I put the odds of getting 2/3 in the Republican controlled upper house as remote, 1:4 if I’m lucky. We’re betting on only the first stage in the process and I’ll let you know when I’m confident enough to get on the next.

Since Nganga has me on ignore, perhaps you could let him know that I’m waiting on him to define the parameters of our wager.

 

[530RL]

I have no reason to dispute your data. However it seems to me that more people, on both sides are firmly dug in. No amount of talking, news, current events, seems to move the needle.

When leadership on both sides attacks the other side personally as opposed to debating ideas, there is no reason to ever compromise and no reason to ever work together again. There is no reason to make decisions on objective facts, you just make up “alternative facts”.

You see it in here, this group is just a reflection of society as a whole.

The middle just shrugs and goes back and forth, but for the true believers, there can be no compromise.

 

[RVR SWPR]

Gmac,you have no idea the total contempt I have for you and your 2 buddies here.This wager deal you constantly peddle is of no real interest to most members @RDP.No need to wager on any of your fucked up issues.Everything going great for many,what your problem might be means nothing.What this forum provides is awareness of your ilk.

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

@Grandpa mac

The parameters; If Trump is Impeached first term...period, you win. If he ends his first term, un-impeached I win.

 

[fmo24]

@Grandpa mac

The parameters; If Trump is Impeached first term...period, you win. If he ends his first term, un-impeached I win.

Impeached or removed from office? Big difference

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

Impeached or removed from office? Big difference

I am extremely aware of what I bet on.

As I stated, I think the Democrats will lose their nerve. They stand to lose the chance at retaining the House, the Presidency and gaining Senate seats.

Pelosi is dumb like a Fox, when it comes to political gamesmanship.

 

[Grandpa mac]

@Grandpa mac

The parameters; If Trump is Impeached first term...period, you win. If he ends his first term, un-impeached I win.

That sir is a bold wager and I applaud you. Should I win I will follow your lead in donating the money to a conservation cause.

 

[rrrr]

At the peak of the Clinton impeachment only 29% of Americans thought impeachment was appropriate.

In Trump’s case, the numbers are dramatically higher.

That's a function of today's complete lack of knowledge regarding the meaning of impeachment and the constitutional definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" among the public, along with the wholesale distortion and suppression of the facts by Democrats and the media.

It has nothing to do with the merit of the respective situations. In fact, it was clear that Clinton had committed perjury when he lied during a deposition about his involvement with Lewinsky. A large percentage of the public understood the lies were about Clinton's personal decisions, and they didn't see the point in pursuing impeachment for it, hence the disinterest.

In Trump's case, the Democrats have used secret testimony and careful leaks to make it appear he has done something nefarious, while denying the minority party in Congress the ability to cross-examine those testifying, preventing them from calling witnesses, prohibiting the president's legal council from attending the hearings, and other schemes to mislead the public into believing there is substance to all of the smoke.

This is the same tactic used by congressional Democrats for almost two years while the so-called collusion investigation was underway. During that entire period, Adam Schiff vehemently maintained he had "proof" of illegal actions by Trump and his campaign. We all know how that turned out.

These facts illustrate why the poll numbers you cite are completely meaningless.

 

[530RL]

That's a function of today's complete lack of knowledge regarding the meaning of impeachment and the constitutional definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" among the public, along with the wholesale distortion and suppression of the facts by Democrats and the media.

It has nothing to do with the merit of the respective situations. In fact, it was clear that Clinton had committed perjury when he lied during a deposition about his involvement with Lewinsky. A large percentage of the public understood the lies were about Clinton's personal decisions, and they didn't see the point in pursuing impeachment for it, hence the disinterest.

In Trump's case, the Democrats have used secret testimony and careful leaks to make it appear he has done something nefarious, while denying the minority party in Congress the ability to cross-examine those testifying, preventing them from calling witnesses, prohibiting the president's legal council from attending the hearings, and other schemes to mislead the public into believing there is substance to all of the smoke.

This is the same tactic used by congressional Democrats for almost two years while the so-called collusion investigation was underway. During that entire period, Adam Schiff vehemently maintained he had "proof" of illegal actions by Trump and his campaign. We all know how that turned out.

These facts illustrate why the poll numbers you cite are completely meaningless.

LOL,

Speaking of lack of knowledge...............

 

[Old Texan]

LOL,

Speaking of lack of knowledge...............

Yeah from you whose thought process is dominated by Trump's presence in your head......Maybe you and granny can figure out a bet on the facts presented which you question.

At least you'll get the charitable write off.

 

[Grandpa mac]

Yeah from you whose thought process is dominated by Trump's presence in your head......Maybe you and granny can figure out a bet on the facts presented which you question.

At least you'll get the charitable write off.

Here are a couple.

“In Trump's case, the Democrats have used secret testimony and careful leaks to make it appear he has done something nefarious, while denying the minority party in Congress the ability to cross-examine those testifying, preventing them from calling witnesses, prohibiting the president's legal council from attending the hearings, and other schemes to mislead the public into believing there is substance to all of the smoke.” -rrrr

But those of us who watching the hearings on live television vividly recall Nunes and Jordan et al questioning witnesses and we know that Volker and Morrison were witnesses called by Republicans who just so happened to hurt the President with their testimony.

So here’s my next wager for you. Bet you can’t think of any criminal indictment celebrity, politician, or street thug where the prosecutor allowed the defense to attend the grand jury, call their own witnesses, or question the prosecutions witnesses. Sure, that all happens at trial but not during the grand jury’s indictment.

 

[Old Texan]

Here are a couple.

“In Trump's case, the Democrats have used secret testimony and careful leaks to make it appear he has done something nefarious, while denying the minority party in Congress the ability to cross-examine those testifying, preventing them from calling witnesses, prohibiting the president's legal council from attending the hearings, and other schemes to mislead the public into believing there is substance to all of the smoke.” -rrrr

But those of us who watching the hearings on live television vividly recall Nunes and Jordan et al questioning witnesses and we know that Volker and Morrison were witnesses called by Republicans who just so happened to hurt the President with their testimony.

So here’s my next wager for you. Bet you can’t think of any criminal indictment celebrity, politician, or street thug where the prosecutor allowed the defense to attend the grand jury, call their own witnesses, or question the prosecutions witnesses. Sure, that all happens at trial but not during the grand jury’s indictment.

Blah, blah, blah, blah

 

[rrrr]

I'm speaking of the period three weeks ago, when the limitations I describe were in force. Before the televised hearings. Pay more attention.

 

[530RL]

I'm speaking of the period three weeks ago, when the limitations I describe were in force. Before the televised hearings. Pay more attention.

LOL

The minority party received equal time to question the witnesses in the closed door depositions.

But why let actual facts get in the way of "alternative facts".........

 

[brgrcru]

LOL

The minority party received equal time to question the witnesses in the closed door depositions.

But why let actual facts get in the way of "alternative facts".........

wrong.

 

[530RL]

wrong.

LOL

You keep on believing........

 

[was thatguy]

When leadership on both sides attacks the other side personally as opposed to debating ideas, there is no reason to ever compromise and no reason to ever work together again. There is no reason to make decisions on objective facts, you just make up “alternative facts”.

You see it in here, this group is just a reflection of society as a whole.

The middle just shrugs and goes back and forth, but for the true believers, there can be no compromise.

Where do you land in this imagined paradigm?

 

[saucedaddy]

LOL

The minority party received equal time to question the witnesses in the closed door depositions.

But why let actual facts get in the way of "alternative facts".........

 

[530RL]

Where do you land in this imagined paradigm?

Living rent free in the middle of your head.

 

[SNiC Jet]

The minority party received equal time to question the witnesses in the closed door depositions.

But why let actual facts get in the way of "alternative facts".........

and Schiff prevented the minority party from calling ANY of their own witnesses to support their defense........but don't let actual facts get in the way.

 

[regor]

View attachment 821106 View attachment 821107

Facts AND Truth in the same post..............................

 

[was thatguy]

Living rent free in the middle of your head.

Lol...You elevate yourself to ridiculous heights. I can’t think of a single person that I think less about...or of, for that matter.

 

[Grandpa mac]

I'm speaking of the period three weeks ago, when the limitations I describe were in force. Before the televised hearings. Pay more attention.

I stand by my comments. It is appropriate and legal to conduct investigations behind close doors. The phase you’re talking about was the equivalent of a grand jury procedure which is ALWAYS behind closed doors and prosecution only. Secondly, those transcripts have now been released and those same witnesses have testified in public and with Republicans both calling their own witnesses and cross examining Dem witnesses. And finally this will all go to trial in the Senate and Trump will have his own lawyers and due process there just as in the legal system. Now I understand y’all will never be happy and your next gripe will be that the whistleblower isn’t forced to provide his second hand info and that the Bidens aren’t likely to be testifying. If course that will all be up to Justice Roberts but judges routinely make decisions about whether it is appropriate to include certain witnesses and if a judge finds that for example the defense is trying to spin a narrative and blame a third party with no supporting evidence, he’s quite likely to exclude that witness. If the Republicans can prove to Roberts that Biden testimony could exonerate Trump then I would expect him to compel that testimony.

 

[Grandpa mac]

and Schiff prevented the minority party from calling ANY of their own witnesses to support their defense........but don't let actual facts get in the way.

Both Volker and Morrison were called as witnesses by House Republicans.

 

[saucedaddy]

Facts AND Truth in the same post..............................

 

[regor]

View attachment 821173

 

[saucedaddy]

View attachment 821177

View attachment 821178

Crushin Ceviche & Modelos daily at the tip! Road out the storm for 2 days now nothing but low 80's here on out! Picked up a case of sauce for Xmas gifts!

 

[rrrr]

LOL

The minority party received equal time to question the witnesses in the closed door depositions.

But why let actual facts get in the way of "alternative facts".........

You are the one ignoring facts.

During the first round of hearings, Republicans were prevented from calling their own witnesses. They were only allowed to question the individuals called by Democrats, and those "witnesses" had been carefully coached, made aware of the questions that would be asked in advance, and rehearsed their responses with House Democrat staff members. There were repeated instances where Schiff interrupted Republican members' inquiries, thereby consuming their allotted time for questioning. In a few instances, Schiff completely cut off certain lines of questioning.

The Democrats selectively released testimony from their carefully chosen cowbirds to the media, and the executive branch was prevented from even attending the sham process, much less enjoying the ability to present witnesses or question the Democrat's carefully selected lineup of peripherally important bit players that regurgitated second and third hand accounts.

Your reply above ignores these facts, and purports to represent the process as one which was conducted in decorum and fairness, which is not remotely related to actual events.

Feel free to LOL and criticize my observations, which plainly illustrates your purpose for participating in this forum. That you focus on childish criticism and drive-by insults instead of never contributing anything of substance to the discussion clearly shows you cannot formulate any serious analysis or commentary.

You possess neither the intellect or ability to objectively examine and discuss the reasons for the Democrats' impeachment effort, a politicized circus of false accusations and innuendo that Andrei Vyshinsky, prosecutor at the 1936 Zinoviev-Kamenev show trials, or Roland Freisler, Nazi prosecutor of those accused in the July 1944 Hitler assassination plot, would readily recognize.

So LOL away. It results in exposing your ignorance and inadequacies, not mine.

 

[regor]

View attachment 821182
Crushin Ceviche & Modelos daily at the tip! Road out the storm for 2 days now nothing but low 80's here on out! Picked up a case of sauce for Xmas gifts!

They labeled it wrong, it’s Tapen-pendejos.

 

[SNiC Jet]

Both Volker and Morrison were called as witnesses by House Republicans.

yes they were.... I lost sight of these two in Schiff's denials, hiding the "whistle blower" and his endless parade of "hearsay" circus clowns. I hope you enjoy the impeachment verdict as much as I....... Either way, Trump & GOP WINS!
See you in 2020 when the final verdict is determined by the U.S. Voters

 

[Activated]

View attachment 821182
Crushin Ceviche & Modelos daily at the tip! Road out the storm for 2 days now nothing but low 80's here on out! Picked up a case of sauce for Xmas gifts!

It is funny, my friends with family in Mexico tell me they hate...literally, hate the South Americans that end up in Mexico. They don’t want them in their country.

But I am a racist. Lol

 

[530RL]

You are the one ignoring facts.

During the first round of hearings, Republicans were prevented from calling their own witnesses. They were only allowed to question the individuals called by Democrats, and those "witnesses" had been carefully coached, made aware of the questions that would be asked in advance, and rehearsed their responses with House Democrat staff members. There were repeated instances where Schiff interrupted Republican members' inquiries, thereby consuming their allotted time for questioning. In a few instances, Schiff completely cut off certain lines of questioning.

The Democrats selectively released testimony from their carefully chosen cowbirds to the media, and the executive branch was prevented from even attending the sham process, much less enjoying the ability to present witnesses or question the Democrat's carefully selected lineup of peripherally important bit players that regurgitated second and third hand accounts.

Your reply above ignores these facts, and purports to represent the process as one which was conducted in decorum and fairness, which is not remotely related to actual events.

Feel free to LOL and criticize my observations, which plainly illustrates your purpose for participating in this forum. That you focus on childish criticism and drive-by insults instead of never contributing anything of substance to the discussion clearly shows you cannot formulate any serious analysis or commentary.

You possess neither the intellect or ability to objectively examine and discuss the reasons for the Democrats' impeachment effort, a politicized circus of false accusations and innuendo that Andrei Vyshinsky, prosecutor at the 1936 Zinoviev-Kamenev show trials, or Roland Freisler, Nazi prosecutor of those accused in the July 1944 Hitler assassination plot, would readily recognize.

So LOL away. It results in exposing your ignorance and inadequacies, not mine.

LOL,

You gonna keep hanging you hat on that I see. Let me change to LMAO.

Your statement was and I quote was:

“while denying the minority party the in congress the ability to cross-examine those testifying”

That is either a flat out lie, or a pre-pubescent mis-understanding of the word “denying” as they were not denied. For if they were denied, you could not later say they were limited. As in order to be limited, they could not have been denied.

So I am going with door two as they were not denied as you repeatedly proclaimed.

You should try smaller words that you can look up and more critically understand in a dictionary.

 

[RVR SWPR]

Nadler turn next week.When the Nadler show is done & gone.Next up will be Trumps turn.The fools apparently have no idea what coming. President Trump wants a Trial,he will settle for nothing less.You morons have no idea what coming if this illitgitiment mess gets to the Senate.Will not be a simple vote,Trump will humiliate the Democrats and take his time doing it on Every Network in prime time during the winter months.Will not cost the Republicans nothing.All Free everyday.

 

[RVR SWPR]

Best make it happen Jerry