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

10 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Can’t imagine what a ****show this would be if John Radcliffe has been appointed director of ODNI. 

 

Reupping now that Ratcliffe spent his entire time talking nonsense and asking no questions. What a disaster that would have been. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

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.

 

 

I've been a fan of both back in the day, now there is no joy in either for me.....lotta good memories though.

 

anyhoo, back to the subject.

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 

I've been a fan of both back in the day, now there is no joy in either for me.....lotta good memories though.

 

anyhoo, back to the subject.

 

 

 

 

I guess he can now join the club of all the other long time public servants accused of being in the "Deep State". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 

"Lack of substance to the complaint"

 

Oh I see, we are going back to cuckoo world again. 

 

This witness is not there to talk about the contents of the complaint.  He is there specifically to talk about his role in the process of the complaint making it's way to congress.

 

The content of the complaint will be discussed when the whistle blower is in front of congress.

Edited by NoCalMike
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 

How can any reasonable person look at the complaint and think it lacks substance?  One may question whether the allegations are true, but if they are, I would hope everyone could agree that it is clear abuse of power by the President.

 

Even if there was no quid pro quo (I think circumstances show that there was, even if Trump never spelled out "give me the investigation for the aid".  And I think he may have spelled it out in steps in conjunction with Guiliani), the mere act of asking another foreign government to conduct an investigation into your political rival would be an abuse of power.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand why Dems are going hard at this dude. I know hes not the bad guy, but someone has to feel the pressure. I dont feel sorry for this dude at all. He has alot of responsibility in the matter. Sometimes when you have that much responsibility you are held responsible. 

Edited by Llevron
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chairman Schiff keeps saying some version of “we should find out if that’s true right?”after reading specific allegations in the whistle blower complaint.  My question is who exactly is going to go over to the White House and find that out, and when?  Seems like chasing down all the basic facts of the complaint is something that should have been done ahead of this, no?  

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Destino said:

Chairman Schiff keeps saying some version of “we should find out if that’s true right?”after reading specific allegations in the whistle blower complaint.  My question is who exactly is going to go over to the White House and find that out, and when?  Seems like getting all the basic facts of the complaint is something that should have been done ahead of this?

 

I think they are using this as a way to get what they want from the white house through the impeachment investigation. They need the investigation to get anything from the white house. They need this to have a reason to investigate. 

 

At least thats what I understand -- I dont really understand it all that well though. 

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

Chairman Schiff keeps saying some version of “we should find out if that’s true right?”after reading specific allegations in the whistle blower complaint.  My question is who exactly is going to go over to the White House and find that out, and when?  Seems like getting all the basic facts of the complaint is something that should have been done ahead of this?

 

The complaint was released last night.

 

This hearing was initially scheduled last week when the complaint was still not being released to Congress, presumably to have the director answer why that's the case.

 

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

 

 

 

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. No one's perfect. His stance is basically that the President is above the law if his AG backs him up. Might want to consider how you would feel about that with a Democratic President.

Also, drama. It's not his integrity that was questioned, it was his judgement.

 

Edited by RedskinsFan44
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I can understand why Dems are going hard at this dude. I know hes not the bad guy, but someone has to feel the pressure. I dont feel sorry for this dude at all. He has alot of responsibility in the matter. Sometimes when you have that much responsibility you are help responsible. 

 

I think the Dems are having to walk a fine line because it's obvious they don't view Maguire as a bad guy, but I think it is fair to press him on the fact that he took this complaint directly to the two guys implicated in it, which led to them sitting on it for a month in order to come up with a strategy to defend it.  It seems like a very odd decision, one that reeks of conflict of interest.   It is a completely fair question to ask. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Destino said:

Chairman Schiff keeps saying some version of “we should find out if that’s true right?”after reading specific allegations in the whistle blower complaint.  My question is who exactly is going to go over to the White House and find that out, and when?  Seems like chasing down all the basic facts of the complaint is something that should have been done ahead of this, no?  

 

 

The real question is what happens if they fire up Impeachment hearings and all the witnesses essentially tell them to pound sand, stonewall and act like Leuwendskey(sp).  Then if the Justice Dept. won't enforce contempt charges, what then?  How does Congress proceed??? I'm not sure anyone knows.  We have never had a complicit Justice Dept. before.  

Edited by HOF44
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

 

The complaint was released last night.

 

This hearing was initially scheduled last week when the complaint was still not being released to Congress, presumably to have the director answer why that's the case.

Ok so if the subject of this hearing changed in the last minute, that explains the sense I’m getting that this hearing was premature.  

 

So now who is going over to the White House and checking the facts against the complaints allegation?  Congress has the responsibility to investigate this, but how do they actually go about doing that?  When does this happen?  

 

I'm eager to move from questions to the establishing the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Destino said:

Chairman Schiff keeps saying some version of “we should find out if that’s true right?”after reading specific allegations in the whistle blower complaint.  My question is who exactly is going to go over to the White House and find that out, and when?  Seems like chasing down all the basic facts of the complaint is something that should have been done ahead of this, no?  

 

 

I suspect the IG did some preliminary work before he deemed it a "credible" complaint. His testimony will be more interesting and informed.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. No one's perfect. His stance is basically that the President is above the law if his AG backs him up. Might want to consider how you would feel about that with a Democratic President.

Also, drama. It's not his integrity that was questioned, it was his judgement.

 

If Obama was doing this he'd want him executed before any evidence was presented.

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

 

I think the Dems are having to walk a fine line because it's obvious they don't view Maguire as a bad guy, but I think it is fair to press him on the fact that he took this complaint directly to the two guys implicated in it, which led to them sitting on it for a month in order to come up with a strategy to defend it.  It seems like a very odd decision, one that reeks of conflict of interest.   It is a completely fair question to ask. 

I agree. The only real problem I had with this session is that the pertinent questions were asked and answered early on. As the Director was not hostile and agreed in substance with the Democrats arguments, there was no need to ask the same question a thousand times. They should have cut it off after a half hour and said, "Thank you for coming. The answers you provided have helped us understand the issues presented in the complaint to be urgent and credible with no reason to suspect that the whistleblower or any involved acted politically or in bad faith.

2 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

I suspect the IG did some preliminary work before he deemed it a "credible" complaint. His testimony will be more interesting and informed.

 

Yes, Schiff indicated that the IG investigated and found cooboration to the complaints made by the whistleblower. This, in part, led to him finding the assertions credible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Destino said:

So now who is going over to the White House and checking the facts against the complaints allegation?  Congress has the responsibility to investigate this, but how do they actually go about doing that?  When does this happen?  

 

I'm eager to move from questions to the establishing the facts.

 

It is implied although not verified that the IC inspector general verified some of the allegations from other witnesses when he deemed the complaint credible and of urgent concern.

 

We will be hearing a lot more over the next month and I'm assuming lots more people will be testifying.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
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...