The whole case seems to come down to this for me. Does a president has reasonable suspicion that an American has committed an illegal or corrupt act in a foreign country have the power, and in fact the duty, to cause that act to be investigated, and to enlist the assistance of such foreign government in such investigation? I believe the answer is yes, and I believe Hunter Biden's outrageously overpriced contract justifies reasonable suspicion.

I don't understand why republicans haven't pushed this argument from day one, because it clearly serves as King's X to overrule the impeachment arguments presented. Oh well, stupid party versus evil party.

(01-15-2020 12:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The whole case seems to come down to this for me. Does a president has reasonable suspicion that an American has committed an illegal or corrupt act in a foreign country have the power, and in fact the duty, to cause that act to be investigated, and to enlist the assistance of such foreign government in such investigation? I believe the answer is yes, and I believe Hunter Biden's outrageously overpriced contract justifies reasonable suspicion.

I don't understand why republicans haven't pushed this argument from day one, because it clearly serves as King's X to overrule the impeachment arguments presented. Oh well, stupid party versus evil party.

I think the issue and I could be wrong is simple.

The Dems set up the rules they wanted in the House and it tied the hands of the Republicans.

Now that it's going to the Senate, McConnell is going to play by the rules set forth previously, but he wants to review the case before anything proceeds.

(01-15-2020 12:46 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Schiff and Nadler among prosecutors for the House. L O Fuckin' L.

Schiff can't testify if he's the prosecutor.

Guess they won't be calling witnesses then.

Pelosi just effed herself then. No way republicans allow witnesses if Schiff can't testify.

Drag it out.

Keep warren and bernie cooped up, and let biden stumble his way around the trail for a few months. Can you imagine the levels of demoralization?

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needled President Trump on Wednesday as she prepared to send articles of impeachment over to the Senate, repeatedly describing the indictment by the House as a permanent stain on his legacy -- no matter what happens next.

“He’s been impeached forever. They can never erase that,” Pelosi said at a press conference announcing her impeachment managers, who will prosecute the case."

What happens next, Nancy? I'll tell you.

1) Trump gets acquitted.

2) Trump gets re-elected.

Suck on that.

It should be summarily thrown out as having no basis. That way the senate sets the precedent that totally political impeachment with no merit will not get any attention from the higher body of congress. Set the precedent. Don’t become part of it.
I would on the other hand love to see the fallout the democrats will surely get for going down this road.

(01-15-2020 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Schiff and Nadler among prosecutors for the House. L O Fuckin' L.

Protecting Schiff from being called as a witness to answer questions pertaining to early contact with the "whistleblower"

Sent from my LG-H932 using CSNbbs mobile app

(01-15-2020 01:07 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needled President Trump on Wednesday as she prepared to send articles of impeachment over to the Senate, repeatedly describing the indictment by the House as a permanent stain on his legacy -- no matter what happens next.

“He’s been impeached forever. They can never erase that,” Pelosi said at a press conference announcing her impeachment managers, who will prosecute the case."

What happens next, Nancy? I'll tell you.

1) Trump gets acquitted.

2) Trump gets re-elected.

Suck on that.

TDS causes nearsightedness. The stain will be squarely upon the speaker and the democrats in the house. It will forever be known as a cartoon impeachment.

(01-15-2020 01:27 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Schiff and Nadler among prosecutors for the House. L O Fuckin' L.

Protecting Schiff from being called as a witness to answer questions pertaining to early contact with the "whistleblower"

Sent from my LG-H932 using CSNbbs mobile app

Maybe in a court of law....which this is not.

I would think Mitch could send this to pasture just based on the partisan nature of the Congressional vote?

That should actually be part of future requirements. No Impeachment shall pass in the affirmative from congress, and further from the Senate, unless a minimum percentage [tbd] of 'yea' votes are secured from each party represented.

This would almost completely stop a railroad job like this from occurring.

It would also force the accuser(s) to actually work to prove guilt or innocence to the masses rather than just throw a bunch of schidt against the wall to see if it sticks with a "rabid fan base"..... so to speak.

(01-15-2020 01:32 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  I would think Mitch could send this to pasture just based on the partisan nature of the Congressional vote?

That should actually be part of future requirements. No Impeachment shall pass in the affirmative from congress, and further from the Senate, unless a minimum percentage [tbd] of 'yea' votes are secured from each party represented.

This would almost completely stop a railroad job like this from occurring.

It would also force the accuser(s) to actually work to prove guilt or innocence to the masses rather than just throw a bunch of schidt against the wall to see if it sticks with a "rabid fan base"..... so to speak.

That makes way to much sense. It would take away some of the politics of impeachment which is exactly why it will never even be discussed.

(01-15-2020 01:29 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 01:27 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Schiff and Nadler among prosecutors for the House. L O Fuckin' L.

Protecting Schiff from being called as a witness to answer questions pertaining to early contact with the "whistleblower"

Sent from my LG-H932 using CSNbbs mobile app

Maybe in a court of law....which this is not.

This. Remember during the House hearings, the Democrats had their counsel as one of the witnesses at the beginning of one of the days.

Nadler walks like a duck. I noticed that as he and Schiff marched into the Senate with the articles of impeachment.

(01-15-2020 06:24 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Nadler walks like a duck. I noticed that as he and Schiff marched into the Senate with the articles of impeachment.

Nadless is a fat pig. He's like a platypussy, he eats like a pig and he walks like a duck and has the brains of dodo bird.

(01-10-2020 12:43 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

Quote:House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Friday that she will take steps next week to send impeachment articles to the Senate, after delaying the process since last month in a bid to extract favorable terms for a trial.

“I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the Floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate. I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further,” Pelosi, D-Calif., wrote in a letter to colleagues.

Link

Bless her heart. She's really trying so hard to do a good job too, LOL.

(01-15-2020 01:32 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  I would think Mitch could send this to pasture just based on the partisan nature of the Congressional vote?

That should actually be part of future requirements. No Impeachment shall pass in the affirmative from congress, and further from the Senate, unless a minimum percentage [tbd] of 'yea' votes are secured from each party represented.

This would almost completely stop a railroad job like this from occurring.

It would also force the accuser(s) to actually work to prove guilt or innocence to the masses rather than just throw a bunch of schidt against the wall to see if it sticks with a "rabid fan base"..... so to speak.

I don't think I would be on board with that "percentage" requirement. What if Republicans overwhelmingly controlled the House and Senate to the extent there was not enough Democrats to qualify the "percentage" requirement even if nearly all voted in agreement and there was a Democrat president that had clearly committed one or more felonies while in office and had to go?

(01-15-2020 08:25 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  I don't think I would be on board with that "percentage" requirement. What if Republicans overwhelmingly controlled the House and Senate to the extent there was not enough Democrats to qualify the "percentage" requirement even if nearly all voted in agreement and there was a Democrat president that had clearly committed one or more felonies while in office and had to go?

To keep it simple... I used "percentage" on purpose rather than a specific number of votes. I am not sure what the right number would be, but let's use 50% for now.

At least half of your party should be on board with an impeachment vote. Even if there are only 100 Dems and 335 Republicans, at least you could stop a political ram-rod from happening. This is only the 3rd time it has ever happened, and none of us were alive the first time - Nixon doesn't count as the process never came to full fruition, and Clinton was pretty bi-partisan as it was obvious to all.



IMO - Impeachment should never be partisan. When you only have 1 republican congressman out of 200-ish voting for it and 3 democrats out of 235-ish voting against it, that kinda-sorta smells like partisan politics to me.

There are many many benefits of party control in the house and Senate, and many of those votes are right down the party line - I get that and I am OK with that. Removal or impeachment of a sitting President is a little different, and I believe that you need more agreement to do that than my team hates your team.


The Democratic party handled this poorly from the day DJT won the election. Anyone who understands the English language heard multiple Dems say they were out to get him [paraphrasing]. They delegitimized all of their efforts from that moment forward.

(01-16-2020 08:58 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:25 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  I don't think I would be on board with that "percentage" requirement. What if Republicans overwhelmingly controlled the House and Senate to the extent there was not enough Democrats to qualify the "percentage" requirement even if nearly all voted in agreement and there was a Democrat president that had clearly committed one or more felonies while in office and had to go?

To keep it simple... I used "percentage" on purpose rather than a specific number of votes. I am not sure what the right number would be, but let's use 50% for now.

At least half of your party should be on board with an impeachment vote. Even if there are only 100 Dems and 335 Republicans, at least you could stop a political ram-rod from happening. This is only the 3rd time it has ever happened, and none of us were alive the first time - Nixon doesn't count as the process never came to full fruition, and Clinton was pretty bi-partisan as it was obvious to all.



IMO - Impeachment should never be partisan. When you only have 1 republican congressman out of 200-ish voting for it and 3 democrats out of 235-ish voting against it, that kinda-sorta smells like partisan politics to me.

There are many many benefits of party control in the house and Senate, and many of those votes are right down the party line - I get that and I am OK with that. Removal or impeachment of a sitting President is a little different, and I believe that you need more agreement to do that than my team hates your team.


The Democratic party handled this poorly from the day DJT won the election. Anyone who understands the English language heard multiple Dems say they were out to get him [paraphrasing]. They delegitimized all of their efforts from that moment forward.

it began long before that....but yeah, the point is easily valid simply b/c the donks were wayyyyyyyyyy tooooooooooooo overrrrrrrrrrrrrrconfident going into cankles and her colostomy sac getting roasted....

if nothing else, it's been entertaining viewing a case study in real time how to continually lose day after day in partisan politics.....it's taken my wit to an entire other level of nuts zongo....

"don't underestimate the donald" - stinkfist

"never underestimate the enemy" - ???