Springfield Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, redskinss said: Legitimate question because I don't know much about the Clinton impeachment. Did clinton block all the material witnesses from testifying during the house impeachment process? Yeah, remember Monica Lewinsky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinss Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Springfield said: Yeah, remember Monica Lewinsky? Of course I do, I just dont remember all the details, I didn't follow it that closely then. Didn't she testify? I assume your response was sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Edit: so I was wrong. I was like 12 when it happened. Oh well. *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Just now, tshile said: I don’t believe she testified I believe it was Paula Jones (friend of hers) that recorded phone calls with her where she discussed it all. And the dress. Linda Tripp was the person who betrayed her trust in the pursuit of the perjury trap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, redskinss said: Of course I do, I just dont remember all the details, I didn't follow it that closely then. Didn't she testify? I assume your response was sarcasm. No, why would someone so critical to a case ever bother testify. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/lewinexcerpts092198.htm Quote Excerpts from Monica Lewinsky's grand jury testimony on Aug. 6 and Aug. 20: Q. What I have placed in front of you is ... a chart that you have ... earlier testified about of contacts between yourself and the president. As I indicated to you informally beforehand, this grand jury session today is for you to answer questions from the grand jurors. And so without any further ado, I will ask the grand jurors if they have any questions of Ms. Lewinsky. A. JUROR I think I'm going to start out. Q. Okay. Q. JUROR Ms. Lewinsky, in your testimony when you were with us on the sixth, you mentioned some of the steps that you took to maintain secrecy regarding your relationship: that you would bring papers or ... you would accidentally bump into each other in the hallway. You always used Betty as the excuse for you to be waved in and on many occasions you would go in one door and out of the other door. A. Yes. ... ... Q. JUROR: ... Were these ways to maintain your secrecy your idea or were they recommended to you by anyone? ... A. Some of them were my idea. Some of them were things that I had discussed with the President. I think it was a mutual understanding between us that obviously we'd both try to be careful. Q. JUROR: Do you recall at all specifically which ones he may have recommended to you as an idea on maintaining the secrecy? A. Yes and no. The issue of Betty being the cover story for when I came to the White House, it became my understanding I think most clearly from the fact that I couldn't come to see him after the election until unless Betty was there to clear me in and that one time when I asked him why, he said because if someone comes to see him, there's a list circulated among the staff members and then everyone would be questioning why I was there to see him. ... Q. MR. EMICK: ... Were there ever any discussions between you and the President about what should be done with letters that you -- letters or notes that you had sent to him? ... A. It was my understanding that obviously he would throw them away or, if he decided to keep them, which I didn't think he did, he would put them somewhere safe. ... Q. What about whether on your caller ID on your telephone the word POTUS would appear and whether anything was done in order to make sure that POTUS did not appear on your telephone? A. My caller ID at work; it would -- when the President called from the Oval Office, it would say POTUS and when he'd call from the residence, it was an asterisk. And I told him that. ... Then one time he called me from the residence ... on a line that had a phone number attached to it and so when he called, he said, "Oh, did it ring up, you know, phone number? It didn't say my name, did it?" And so it was -- that was something that I was concerned about. Q. Did he ever express to you a reluctance to leave messages on your telephone voice message system? A. At home? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q: All right. Tell us about that. A. One time in a conversation he just said he didn't like to leave messages. Q. OK. What about the times that you would visit him? Were those times selected in a way so that there weren't people around or that certain people weren't around? A. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Jumbo said: so are y'all gonna quit that and start openly acknowledging it on a regular basis as a huge priority to fix in your 'party' or just argue the same **** you have for decades..."it's exaggerated, it's libs making stuff up, libs are the ones all freaks/crazy/hateful/violent/commies, it's the libs it's the libs burpfart"...etc. you know.... when the impeachment stuff started I hoped it would break through all that and get at least a portion to reflect, as you suggest but based on conversations of the last week I’ve lost that hope. it’s part of what drives my opinion that the dems dragging this out is bad for the overall “sell” of the impeachment. It took, what I thought was, a very straight forward fact-driven process and turns it into political theater. and when that happens everyone feels super comfortable retreating to their safe place of “they’re there ones that are wrong” and people tune out of course some/many would argue that those people were always going to fall back to trump it was just a matter of what excuse they used. Which could very we’ll be true. But I’d have rather seen them keep trying to get those people. And I also think you could wind up just losing people that are currently on your side (but not adamantly so) ie: don’t make it easier for the gop to muddy the water anymore than they already are. And this tactic has a chance of doing just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 59 minutes ago, twa said: Schumer opposed calling witnesses back in the day, fun to watch sides flip . I would propose waiting till Scotus rules and let the House call them if allowed, doing otherwise is simply ignoring procedure. 20 minutes ago, redskinss said: Legitimate question because I don't know much about the Clinton impeachment. Did clinton block all the material witnesses from testifying during the house impeachment process? No, Clinton didn't block anybody. (Nixon tried, and the Supremes ordered him to comply. In a very short time.) And the Senate called witnesses, for their part. (Which deals with the "ignoring procedure" lie.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 25 minutes ago, Larry said: No, Clinton didn't block anybody. Bull**** https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-03-21-9803210098-story.html CLINTON INVOKES EXECUTIVE SHIELD IN STARR INQUIRY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, twa said: Bull**** https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-03-21-9803210098-story.html CLINTON INVOKES EXECUTIVE SHIELD IN STARR INQUIRY Ken Starr impeached Clinton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Larry said: Ken Starr impeached Clinton? Are you trying to be dense? Or are you calling for a special counsel to do the investigation for the House? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 8 minutes ago, twa said: Are you trying to be dense? You’re correct. And at the same time, not even a hint of irony, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 King snowflake ❄️ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Letter-from-President-Trump-final.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted December 17, 2019 Author Share Posted December 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, illone said: King snowflake ❄️ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Letter-from-President-Trump-final.pdf "You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!" "It is a terrible thing that you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!" This is dumb even by Republican standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 yes, another proud moment in goper history (the trump letter) from the imperfect tool hand-picked by gawd to work his mysterious ways ding-a-lings, hear them sing it's cretin time in the city Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted December 17, 2019 Author Share Posted December 17, 2019 "I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution!" "More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials!" It is hard to believe this is a real letter, written by a real person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 That letter is basically the last couple weeks worth of Trump's tweets sandwiched into a letter. What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmirOfShmo Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Hey Donnie.. I think he had a ****ing 6 year old write this letter..LMFAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 20 minutes ago, No Excuses said: "More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials!" Trump really want the Democrats to test this out? We can get some rocks and head to the Potmac if he serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted December 17, 2019 Author Share Posted December 17, 2019 To drown out impeachment news, MAGA twitter tried to get "#Trump2020Landslide" trending, except they spelled it LANDSIDE and now #Trump2020Landside is trending with 12k tweets already. Amazingly dumb time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Any boot lickers proud of that letter? 🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmirOfShmo Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 This **** just writes itself. The comments are hilarious https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/474937-read-trump-letter-to-pelosi-objecting-to-impeachment-process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Might be time to recreate IMO one of the best moments of Stewart/Colbert. Context. It's presidential primary season. And something happened (don't think I ever found out what). And virtually the entire campaign staff walks out on Newt Gingrich. Newt issues a rather incomprehensible press release. Colbert covers the press release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 Man, that thing reads like the Jonbenet ransom note. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmsy Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 71% of Americans want Trump to let first hand witnesses to testify. If he refuses, he looks like a liar or someone with something to hide to almost three quarters of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.