trump impeachment watch thread

[TSA]

No, she's running an impeachment inquiry. Which is treated differently than a congressional investigation. That's Nixon and the Hasting decision I quoted. That's why Watkins and Quinn are inapplicable.

But I'm actually glad you recognize DJT's lawyer is quoting bad law for a rejected premise. At least we're getting somewhere.

Are you claiming the Speaker of the House can open an official impeachment inquiry on her own?

[vy65]

Are you claiming the Speaker of the House can open an official impeachment inquiry on her own?

Yes.

[Pavlov]

TSA believes literally everything he is told to believe by every right winger with a protect Dennison agenda.

[RandomGuy]

you ignored my question

[RandomGuy]

Are you claiming the Speaker of the House can open an official impeachment inquiry on her own?

Feel free to cite the cons ution where it says the Speaker cannot. We'll wait.

[TSA]

Yes.

Ok.

[vy65]

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) in a letter last week to put the impeachment inquiry on hold “until transparent and equitable rules and procedures are established.” His staff argues it’s about making sure the party in the minority has some power during the impeachment process.

Pelosi shot that down in a letter of her own hours later, saying that House committees already have the power needed to conduct the inquiry under current House rules and no vote is necessary. That’s true. At the time of the Clinton impeachment, committee chairs needed a formal vote to give them subpoena power. Since then the rules have changed and their regular powers have been expanded, so they don’t need the vote — though Republicans, as the minority, still would.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...-pelosi-doesnt

[There was no] House resolution authorizing this Committee to consider whether or not Justice William O. Douglas had committed any impeachable offenses. The matter died in committee but only after some initial, brief deliberation and investigation were done. Nor was there a House resolution authorizing three separate hearings held by this Committee in 2016, on whether John Koskinen, then the head of the Internal Revenue Service, had committed any impeachable offenses. Nor was there one, in the late 1980s, authorizing this Committee to explore whether to impeach three federal district judges. All three judges were eventually impeached, convicted, and removed from office. The lawsuit filed challenging the procedures held in the Senate was dismissed because, the Court found, it raised nonjusticiable questions left to the final discretion of the Senate.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...t-inquiry.html

[vy65]

Ok.

Now, do you agree or disagree with the statements made in the letter from WH counsel that you posted?

[vy65]

I can give you specific statements if you'd like TSA

[RandomGuy]

=5th time
Should Trump be impeached if he starts threatening countries for dirt on his political opponents, TSA? Simple yes or no question.

Sure [denial that denial that a threat was made for dirt]

Well, we have a standard we can both agree on [threatening another country for dirt on a political rival is an impeachable offense]. A step forward.
Is Ukraine dependent on US security guarantees and military aid to protect itself from Russia? yes or no.

The US contributes a lot to the protection of Ukraine. [denial that a threat was made for dirt]

Another yes.
We are indeed getting somewhere. 1st time
Was this aid suspended at any time? If so, when?
You might find this link helpful:
https://www.apnews.com/94fdeaddc6b34c02b97278674b87541e

[repeats denial that denial that a threat was made for dirt]

Not really an answer. We are attempting to establish facts concerning what you yourself admit should be impeachable. Hard to do when you fail to offer any.
The question remains.
Ukraine is dependent on the US for military and economic support. 2nd time
Was this aid suspended at any time? If so, when?

[repeats denial that denial that a threat was made for dirt]

Not really an answer.
We are attempting to establish facts concerning what you yourself admit should be impeachable.
Hard to do when you fail to offer any.
The question remains.
Ukraine is dependent on the US for military and economic support. 3rd time
Was this aid suspended at any time? If so, when?

[repeats denial that a threat was made for dirt]

Not really an answer.
We are attempting to establish facts concerning what you yourself admit should be impeachable.
Hard to do when you fail to offer any.
The question remains.
Ukraine is dependent on the US for military and economic support. 4th time
Was this aid suspended at any time? If so, when?

[ignores question, posts tweets]

Not really an answer.
We are attempting to establish facts concerning what you yourself admit should be impeachable.
Hard to do when you fail to offer any.
The question remains.
Ukraine is dependent on the US for military and economic support. 5th time
Was this aid suspended at any time? If so, when?

[ignores question, posts tweets deflecting from central question of impeachment]

Not really an answer to my question.
We are attempting to establish facts concerning what you yourself admit should be impeachable. Hard to do when you fail to offer any.
The question remains.
Ukraine is dependent on the US for military and economic support. [6th time
Was this aid suspended at any time? If so, when?

[ignores question, answers other posts]

People who cannot answer honest, fair questions are dishonest sophists.

TSA cannot answer answer honest, fair questions.

TSA is a dishonest sophist.
QED

sophist[ sof-ist ]SHOW IPA
EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR sophist ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
(often initial capital letter) Greek History.
any of a class of professional teachers in ancient Greece who gave instruction in various fields, as in general culture, rhetoric, politics, or disputation.
a person belonging to this class at a later period who, while professing to teach skill in reasoning, concerned himself with ingenuity and specious effectiveness rather than soundness of argument.
a person who reasons adroitly and speciously rather than soundly.

The early manifestation of Dunning-Kruger.

Why are you dishonest here?

I already told you I’m not interested in playing your game of hypotheticals just to circle back to your original false claim.

I haven't made any claims yet in the course of this back and forth, dishonest sophist.

I have merely agreed with you:
Trump [should] be impeached if he starts threatening countries for dirt on his political opponents

I am attempting to determine if that happened based on the facts we can both agree on.

You have not answered any questions that might establish facts relevant to that statement, because you are dishonest.

I am merely curious as to why you are dishonest here. Repeating your refusal to answer questions doesn't really tell me why you are dishonest.

Why are you dishonest here?

[TSA]

Now, do you agree or disagree with the statements made in the letter from WH counsel that you posted?

I still agree with the overall theme, what Pelosi is attempting to do against the President is unprecedented. It’s nothing more than desperate political theater and a last gasp after Russiagate failed to deliver the death blow they hoped for.

[vy65]

I still agree with the overall theme, what Pelosi is attempting to do against the President is unprecedented. It’s nothing more than desperate political theater and a last gasp after Russiagate failed to deliver the death blow they hoped for.

So you agree that there's nothing illegal or uncons utional or otherwise improper that Pelosi is doing. You agree that Pelosi is not violating "appropriate procedures" that would include "at a minimum-the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony."

You also agree that the committee has no obligation and is not required to dislcose all evidence favorable to the President.

You just don't like the theme of what Pelosi is doing because, as I garner it, it's political theatre and not grounded in the reality of anything the President has done?

[boutons_deux]

This is a stupid position to take.

... besides a lot of ty contents, it's not fully enforced. therefore, like any law not enforced, it's irrelevant.

[Pavlov]

I agree all the facts they presented are wrong, BUT I STILL BELIEVE THEY ARE COMPLETELY RIGHT!

[TSA]

I haven't made any claims yet in the course of this back and forth, dishonest sophist.

I have merely agreed with you:
Trump [should] be impeached if he starts threatening countries for dirt on his political opponents

I am attempting to determine if that happened based on the facts we can both agree on.

You have not answered any questions that might establish facts relevant to that statement, because you are dishonest.

I am merely curious as to why you are dishonest here. Repeating your refusal to answer questions doesn't really tell me why you are dishonest.

Why are you dishonest here?

You aren’t trying to determine anything based on facts. You’ve already made your mind up.

Is it acceptable for a president to ask for assistance from foreign governments to make up dirt on political rivals?

Again, no one wants to play a game of hypotheticals with you.

[TSA]

So you agree that there's nothing illegal or uncons utional or otherwise improper that Pelosi is doing. You agree that Pelosi is not violating "appropriate procedures" that would include "at a minimum-the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony."

You also agree that the committee has no obligation and is not required to dislcose all evidence favorable to the President.

You just don't like the theme of what Pelosi is doing because, as I garner it, it's political theatre and not grounded in the reality of anything the President has done?

I do like the theme of what Pelosi is doing because it’s just political theater.

[vy65]

I do like the theme of what Pelosi’s because it’s just political theater.

Right, and you're en led to that opinion. But Trump's lawyer is wrong on several statements contained in that letter. You'd agree with that, right?

[RandomGuy]

[long thread showing TSA unwilling to answer a simple question, despite agreeing on cir stances of when impeachment should happen]

People who cannot answer honest, fair questions are dishonest sophists.

TSA cannot answer answer honest, fair questions.

TSA is a dishonest sophist.
QED


The early manifestation of Dunning-Kruger.

Why are you dishonest here?

I already told you I’m not interested in playing your game of hypotheticals just to circle back to your original false claim.

I haven't made any claims yet in the course of this back and forth, dishonest sophist.

I have merely agreed with you:
Trump [should] be impeached if he starts threatening countries for dirt on his political opponents

I am attempting to determine if that happened based on the facts we can both agree on.

You have not answered any questions that might establish facts relevant to that statement, because you are dishonest.

I am merely curious as to why you are dishonest here. Repeating your refusal to answer questions doesn't really tell me why you are dishonest.

Why are you dishonest here?

You aren’t trying to determine anything based on facts. You’ve already made your mind up.

Again, no one wants to play a game of hypotheticals with you.

You aren't trying to determine anything based on facts, which is why you repeatedly won't answer questions about facts. You've already made up your mind up.

You don't want to deal with reality, because you know that Trump did, by your own definition, commit something you yourself admit is impeachable.

That is why you will not answer the honest questions.

You are inherently dishonest, and on some level know that. I already know this.

I am not asking you now anything hypothetical.

I am asking you why you cannot be honest. Your dishonesty is established fact based on your inability to answer.

Why do you think you are dishonest?

Alternately: Do you think you are honest?

[TSA]

You aren't trying to determine anything based on facts, which is why you repeatedly won't answer questions about facts. You've already made up your mind up.

You don't want to deal with reality, because you know that Trump did, by your own definition, commit something you yourself admit is impeachable.

That is why you will not answer the honest questions.

You are inherently dishonest, and on some level know that. I already know this.

I am not asking you now anything hypothetical.

I am asking you why you cannot be honest. Your dishonesty is established fact based on your inability to answer.

Why do you think you are dishonest?

Alternately: Do you think you are honest?

All your whining about honesty and in the exact same post you just outright lie. Never once did I say Trump threatened other countries for dirt on his political opponents. You’re a pathetic liar and there is no point in continuing this discussion with someone who tries to pull that type of .

[TSA]

Right, and you're en led to that opinion. But Trump's lawyer is wrong on several statements contained in that letter. You'd agree with that, right?

My opinion really doesn’t matter as I assume his claims will be tested in court.

[Pavlov]

My opinion really doesn’t matter as I assume his claims will be tested in court.

That's the thing -- all his claims have been tested in the Supreme Court.

And all his claims were roundly denied by that court.

Impeachment is the House's bailiwick and no one else's. The Senate has the final say after impeachment happens, so relax.

[TSA]

The Rake

When political theater blows up in your face

Whistleblower complaint of Trump threatening Zelensky for political dirt sparks Pelosi’s “impeachment inquiry”

Trump releases actual call from Whistleblower complaint, no threat made, no quid pro quo.

Whistleblower found to have met with Schiff/Schiff staff before meeting with ICIG.

Schiff lied about it.

Whistleblower withheld meeting from ICIG form.

ICIG found to have conveniently modified form to allow second hand info allowed on whistleblower complaint form.

ICIG reveals whistleblower has professional ties to a Dem presidential candidate.

Burisma case re-opened before Zelensky even elected

[hater]

this show is gonna end the same way 2016 election night ended

With snowflakes, manginas and shillary s crying their eyes off



This will be beautiful to watch

Will make the Kavanaughty asskicking like a walk in the park

Called it on page 1 weeks ago

[Pavlov]

When political theater blows up in your face

Whistleblower complaint of Trump threatening Zelensky for political dirt sparks Pelosi’s “impeachment inquiry”

Trump releases actual call from Whistleblower complaint, no threat made, no quid pro quo.

Whistleblower found to have met with Schiff/Schiff staff before meeting with ICIG.

Schiff lied about it.

Whistleblower withheld meeting from ICIG form.

ICIG found to have conveniently modified form to allow second hand info allowed on whistleblower complaint form.

ICIG reveals whistleblower has professional ties to a Dem presidential candidate.

Burisma case re-opened before Zelensky even elected

life in the bubble

[vy65]

My opinion really doesn’t matter as I assume his claims will be tested in court.

You're shrinking away because you know that letter is filled with discredited bull . Be honest and admit as much.