Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Impeachment Thread


Impeachment  

198 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Donald Trump be impeached for obstruction of justice?



Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

ai_474%20join%20me%202.jpg

 

My kid and I were just watching that last night. He's now a Darth Vader fan. He always sides with the villains. I'm worried lol. 

Edited by AJ*
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

This dude is getting hammered because it sounds like he unnecessarily went right to the Whitehouse with this whistleblower complaint to tip them off and give them the ability to get ahead of the story. 

 

He's being unfairly grilled by the Dems to be honest. Hearing him today, he seems like someone stuck in a ****storm that he really had no role in creating. This is an unprecedented situation.

 

The Dems are going unfairly hard after this man and the Rs look totally impotent. It's like the typical script of how these things go have been flipped. Nunes looks depressed.

Edited by No Excuses
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

He's being unfairly grilled by the Dems to be honest. Hearing him today, he seems like someone stuck in a ****storm that he really had no role in creating. This is an unprecedented situation.

 

The Dems are going unfairly hard after this man and the Rs look totally impotent. It's like the typical script of how these things go have been flipped. Nunes looks depressed.

 

Dems are going hard, but I think it is because they are tired of past, current, and likely future investigations being stifled by the White House & DOJ.  Even he just admitted that the whistle blower stuff not being made available to Congress is unprecedented. 

 

The question he isn't providing a good answer to is why he withheld the whistleblower information from Congress. Oh I know I know......"executive privilege" 

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

This dude is getting hammered because it sounds like he unnecessarily went right to the Whitehouse with this whistleblower complaint to tip them off and give them the ability to get ahead of the story. 

 

When the complaint concerns presidential communications that is a necessary first stop.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perspective is interesting. I hear him agreeing a ton with the Democrats and disputing the Republican counter arguments.

 

I will say it's already gotten overly circular. All the questions seem to have been asked and answered. He hasn't been hostile or particularly evasive. He's said that the report was judged "credible" that the whistleblower acted appropriately and followed all the right steps, and that he didn't see signs of political bias. He also said, that if the alleged charges are proven true they are damning.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Maguire's interpretation of the statute is accurate (highly debatable at best), then that brings out an even more important question.  If the intelligence community member files a whistle blower complaint that is not specifically covered by the scope of the statute, then the ball goes back to the executive branch?  It's open invitation to quash the complaint by broad stroke of executive privilege, which is exactly what might have happened here had the existence of the complaint not been made public.  

 

We need to balance the need for a president to conduct foreign policy out of the eyes of the public, but it can't be out of the eyes of Congress at the president's sole discretion.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gbear said:

I am curious, when did executive privilege become something that exists without being asserted? Was it always thus?

In fairness, I think assumed privilege has some place when we're talking about the communication between world leaders. Then again, I think that privilege ought to be from the people not from Congress.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, gbear said:

I am curious, when did executive privilege become something that exists without being asserted? Was it always thus?

 

No.  But Maguire is saying that he gave the opportunity for the WH to assert privilege.  But since there was no deadline to assert the privilege, WH pretty much sat on it.

 

OTOH

Maguire comes across as a very even keeled and a fair witness.  Dems need to let him finish every answer and not cut him off.

Edited by bearrock
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Maguire comes across as a very even keeled and a fair witness.  Dems need to let him finish every answer and not cut him off.

 

Being dicks. He's not the problem here.

 

This hearing would be going even better for Dems if they weren't attacking an individual who seems to be acting as an impartial actor. The Rs have no defense of Trump's behavior.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

No.  But Maguire is saying that he gave the opportunity for the WH to assert privilege.  But since there was no deadline to assert the privilege, WH pretty much sat on it.

 

No answer is a answer.

 

The ability given to the ICIG to notify congress exists for that reason.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2019 at 8:07 AM, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

On 9/25/2019 at 10:35 AM, StillUnknown said:

 

A good part of me thinks they had two copies and accidentally released the real one.

 

He really thought this was going to help him

 

 

the takeaway is that this DID help him.  immensely..... relative to a full unabridged transcript of the conversation.   

they want the attention to be on THIS as the definitive transcript of the conversation, and of the scandal.   In THIS report there is (im) plausible deniability ... there is only enough room to convince a booger eating moron or someone that doesn't care if an explanation is viable, only if it says what they want to hear .... but in that case there is ENOUGH room for basically all of Trump's base.

 

the real transcript must basically be Trump standing in a robe with a bloody knife in one hand and and a signed confession in the other, for his defense team to JUMP on this transcript the way they did...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

the real transcript must basically be Trump standing in a robe with a bloody knife in one hand and and a signed confession in the other, for his defense team to JUMP on this transcript the way they did...

 

I don't think the transcript (summary) helps him.  Even a lot of the GOP seems pretty mum on what went on.  Do they think it rises to the level of an impeachable offense? Likely not, but that is why the whistle blower him/herself specifically needs to be heard from by Congress because there is little doubt that this transcript summary is only one piece of what was going on. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

You were a 'Skins fan in Texas when it mattered. You sir, are made from stern stuff. 

 

I almost hate to contradict a positive post about @twa, but I'm actually pretty sure he's a Cowboys fan. That's a long ago memory, though, so I could be mistaken.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody needs to pass a note to the Dems on the committee that they are taking a wrong tact with the hearing so far.  Maguire is not an adverse witness.  You can disagree with his interpretation of the statute, but I think that's still a gray area.  Treat him as an expert, not an adverse party.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cooked Crack said:
The DOJ is where complaints that might hurt Trump goes to die.

 

Right, and that is my point.  I am not saying Maguire took the complaint to the White House/DOJ specifically to help them kill it temporarily, but considering Barr was also implicated on the call and in the complaint, what in the hell did he think was going to happen when it was brought to Barr's attention?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Swalwel had the best line of questioning. Central to the complaint was allegations of soliciting campaign help from foreign sources and using intelligence infrastructure to hide political misdeeds. He can't say "the complaint's allegations are outside my purview".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jumbo locked this topic
  • Jumbo unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...