|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Look...you must. /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1574726273 Message started by raydawg on 11/25/19 at 15:57:53 |
|
Title: Look...you must. Post by raydawg on 11/25/19 at 15:57:53 We have been told countless times, this impeachment is NOT politically motivated..... This president has been described as a real threat, to our democracy, and the world, for that matter. He has done pretty much everything for his own personal benefit, etc, lying, cheating, and is the root cause of all this divisiveness between everyone in America.....we are told, pretty much everyday in the media, etc. Given all of these charges and concerns, hunches, guesses, opinions, and lets not forget FACTS....... You do NOT have the option of NOT bringing forward articles of impeachment, against him.....period, plain and simple, done deal. You can NOT make any case for not doing so.... Well, unless I guess it might cost you some elections, or....??? That is what it will come down to if you don't. CUT BAIT, or FISH....!! |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by T And T Garage on 11/26/19 at 07:07:05 Do you think it's not going to happen now? What's changed? Articles will be drawn up. It will not get past the Senate. But nonetheless, it'll be formal. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by raydawg on 11/26/19 at 07:32:28 Talk is starting to arise that in might not happen......??? I hope it goes to the senate, we get more witnesses called to testify, subpoenas issued, to those who won't honor them, held accountable. Maybe we can get to the truth based on actual facts that can be verified. Here is a example of what I am starting to see: Michigan Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence, a prominent supporter of Kamala Harris who has previously supported the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, abruptly announced Sunday that she no longer saw any "value" in the process and called for her fellow Democrats to throw their support behind a symbolic censure resolution. Lawrence's about-face came as polls have shown that independents are souring on the idea of impeaching and removing Trump from office, including in critical battleground states like Wisconsin, even as House Democrats aggressively presented their focus-group-tested "bribery" case against the president over the past two weeks. "We are so close to an election," Lawrence said Sunday on a Michigan radio program, noting that Trump stands little chance of being convicted by the GOP-controlled Senate. "I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don't see the value of taking him out of office. But I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable. It's in violation of the oath of office of a president of the United States, and we have to be clear that you cannot use your power of the presidency to withhold funds to get a foreign country to investigate an American citizen for your own personal gain. There's no way around that." Lawrence continued: "I want him censured. I want it on the record that the House of Representatives did their job and they told this president and any president coming behind him that this is unacceptable behavior and, under our Constitution, we will not allow it. ... I am a Democrat, but I am an independent United States of America citizen." I already shared a while back, I thought this was a better option.... However....this seems to really fly in the face of "doing the right thing, regardless" as I mentioned above about the grave threat Trump is purported to our constitution....and it is political.... Lawrence's about-face came as polls have shown that independents are souring on the idea of impeaching and removing Trump from office, including in critical battleground states like Wisconsin, even as House Democrats aggressively presented their focus-group-tested "bribery" case against the president over the past two weeks. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by Mavigogun on 11/26/19 at 08:10:38 26352D30352333540 wrote:
People say all sorts of absurd things, making much of some Democrat leadership pains to not telegraph prejudgement. These are not honest concerns, but a campaign designed to suggest uncertainty of evidence or purpose. I hope it goes to the senate, we get more witnesses called to testify, subpoenas issued, to those who won't honor them, held accountable. As do I- though I have little hope of accountability. Pelosi seems to have judged using the full power of the House to compel testimony not politically constructive in this time. Maybe we can get to the truth based on actual facts that can be verified. I'm doubtful you are susceptible to what you are asking for- we had candidate Trump on live TV bizarrely ask Russia specifically to attack his political rival's computer system; within hours they did so, then release curated portions of stolen communications a few days before the election; Trump's campaign briefed Russian intelligence on key battleground States. Do those facts matter to you? Trump's campaign contracted Cambridge Analytica, the very company approached by Russia to influence US elections and sew division among the US electorate; Trump parroted propaganda generated by Russian troll farm the Internet Research Agency, an organ of Putin's power; connections and overlay between the two are on the order of hearing a gunshot, turning a corner to see a man with a smoking gun standing over a corps with a fresh bullet wound. Whether you reasonably regard the facts in pursuit of an accurate apprehension of truth is up to you- but you've given me plenty of reason to be skeptical of your regard, Ray. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by WebsterMark on 11/26/19 at 08:28:56 4C525D5C514C574A380 wrote:
I'm not 100% sure of the process. Can articles of impeachment be drawn up but not actually voted on? I assume that could happen. By doing that, they could essentially call this a de facto censure. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by Mavigogun on 11/26/19 at 08:43:12 People say all sorts of absurd things... Right on cue- 7E4C4B5A5D4C5B64485B42290 wrote:
The label is the least important aspect- real damage, real crimes. Given the evidence presented thus far, anything less than a hearing in the Senate will declare the House party to lawlessness. The presumption is fantastic. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by T And T Garage on 11/26/19 at 10:06:18 0B393E2F28392E113D2E375C0 wrote:
I'm not 100% sure of the process. Can articles of impeachment be drawn up but not actually voted on? I assume that could happen. By doing that, they could essentially call this a de facto censure. [/quote] It will be "tried" in the Senate, but there's no way in hell they'll ever impeach him. jim ($5 haircut) jordan already said he'd never vote for an impeachment no matter what the evidence shows. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by WebsterMark on 11/26/19 at 10:34:33 Impeachment is in the House and you're either impeached or not. The trial is in the Senate where you're either guilty or acquitted. What goes for Jordan goes the same for Shifty Shiff. Point is, can they draw up articles of impeachment, make a big deal out of releasing to the press, maybe even have copies available for the public, put an original copy on display like the declaration of independence etc.. but never actually take an impeachment vote. That way they can keep talking about it without actually facing the most severe ramifications that could come from it. But, they got to do something. It's going down in flames and actually taking an impeachment vote might not be a very good idea because by the time they actually get around to it, they might not have enough democratic support or even if they do, the numbers might be way closer than they want. They're in a tough spot. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by raydawg on 11/26/19 at 10:50:25 Look Mark, you can't put that Genie back in the bottle..... We heard over, and over again from Schiff, and the media, how the evidence was overwhelming, and again, the damage, and threat, to our Constitution, Trump posed, and executed.....required this action. That it was NOT political, but their responsibility, to remove this Putin plant....etc. If their proof is that damaging, and obvious, Mitch, or Jordan, will be revealed as partisans, and the swing, and undecided voters will punish them, in 2020.... The democrats have to believe that, or they don't....no sorta pregnant here, that I can see. They pushed this narrative, was it merely for political maneuvering, or is it true, and the evidence meets the preponderance? If they back pedal....it will prove costly to them on the voters I mentioned, and inflame the AOC folks, who are very vocal..... |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by Mavigogun on 11/26/19 at 11:13:57 2C3F273A3F29395E0 wrote:
Despite professed preferences, Ray's reasoning is, here, sound; in this, he distinguishes himself from Mark... before returning to type with the "AOC folk" noise. Who does the Dawg refer to? Women? People of color? Folks who value justice, rule of law, decency, equity, and a future that doesn't resemble a bad sci-fi novel? 457770616677605F736079120 wrote:
Through Mark's broken lens, all the children on Santa's list are naughty. Every horrible person is equivocated to a good person. Everybody is covered in the crap he flings. Any person of integrity viewing the last week of testimony can attest to how of a piece Jim and Mark are. Lump of coal for you, Mark. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by Oldfeller on 11/26/19 at 12:31:33 The Democrats are searching for any way to avoid an impeachment vote ---- they heard about the Republican plan to vote FOR impeachment so the trial can move forward to the Senate. During which trial evidence of various criminal action items will come to light about Democrats, and criminal referrals will be filed. Indictments would follow. Watch all them fleas dancing on the hot skillet ---- EEEEK !!!! Allow no voting to take place !!!! We would automatically lose the 2020 Presidential election and some of our fellow Democrats would actually go to jail. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by WebsterMark on 11/26/19 at 12:41:43 Look Mark, you can't put that Genie back in the bottle..... We heard over, and over again from Schiff, and the media, how the evidence was overwhelming, and again, the damage, and threat, to our Constitution, Trump posed, and executed.....required this action. I disagree Ray. Schiff said over and over again that he had clear and convincing evidence of criminal conspiracy with regards to the Russian conspiracy case and I would challenge you to remember the last time you heard that talked about even though it dominated the news cycle day and night for two years...... Seriously, isn't it amazing that a topic that big died that quickly.....It's like the Titanic. One day it's floating along, dominating the skyline and before you know it, you gotta go deep to catch even a glimpse of it. I'm not saying repeating that feat would be easy, but as long as the media goes along with it, which of course they will, they've got a chance to pretend this who impeachment thing never happened. That it was NOT political, but their responsibility, to remove this Putin plant....etc. If their proof is that damaging, and obvious, Mitch, or Jordan, will be revealed as partisans, and the swing, and undecided voters will punish them, in 2020.... Ask 100 swing state voters who Mitch McConnell is? Or Jim Jordan? 10%? 20% ? The democrats have to believe that, or they don't....no sorta pregnant here, that I can see. They pushed this narrative, was it merely for political maneuvering, or is it true, and the evidence meets the preponderance? If they back pedal....it will prove costly to them on the voters I mentioned, and inflame the AOC folks, who are very vocal..... Oh, they're going to inflame the AOC wing for sure. But they're going to inflame half their base no matter what they do. Go with Biden; the lunatic half is wound up. Go with Warren or Sanders, the normal half stays home or votes third party. The Dems are in trouble for 2020. Trump pulled together the two halves of the Republican Party, mostly into one. Who on the Democratic side can merge the far, wacho, communist left with the somewhat normal, sane, old fashion liberal? |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by Mavigogun on 11/26/19 at 13:05:41 7A484F5E59485F604C5F462D0 wrote:
Watch out, Ray- Mark's come unhinged by your reporting from outside his silo. While Nixon consolidated xenophobes and bigots into the GOP base, Trump has distilled that down to those who are susceptible to his con. Like any other huckster, the impossibility of his message is designed to parse out folks incapable or unwilling to scrutinize. There's only so much integrity some Republicans are willing to sacrifice. Mark isn't one of those people. When folks he perceives to be in his own camp vocalize discernment, that's a threat to his self image. You're all supposed to be implicated together, remember? If you start describing the Naked Emperor, the inanity of Mark's fantasy is cast in a stark light. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by pg on 11/26/19 at 16:01:07 737F68777971796B701E0 wrote:
This may seem incomprehensible to the left; however, many people including myself believe in his platform the policies he has implementented. Albeit he is no saint; however, I feel the direction the country is going utterly fantastic. The only thing that could be better than a second term would be if Don Jr made it a 3rd. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by raydawg on 11/26/19 at 16:33:08 7F4D4A5B5C4D5A65495A43280 wrote:
Mark...I think you misunderstood me, or I messed up explaining it. I never said I thus far believe the Schiff trial, no..... As you say, he (Schiff) has said he has real unmitigated proof.... Couple that with how they, the liberals, in general, say its NOT political, but to protect our Constitution.... That is why I say they either go all in, or they own the truth, it WAS political, it can't be both, show me that proof. I'd love to see him under oath in a senate trial. Did that help? :-? |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by WebsterMark on 11/26/19 at 16:51:37 "It can't be both." Good phrase. Either Trump is the worst threat to the Republic since the first shots fired on Ft Sumter or he's not. Either this is just a political ploy or its not. But it can't be both. Of course it's just a political ploy. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by Mavigogun on 11/26/19 at 17:55:26 37243C21243222450 wrote:
Shiff hasn't just said he had something- that's a Trumplandia tactic -the House committees have demonstrated the crime with hours of testimony. If you'd watched, you'd know. If you weren't focused on denial, you'd know. No one can spoon feed you into a good-faith regard- you gotta choose to be that person. Or not. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by raydawg on 11/26/19 at 18:13:11 No friggin way...... You DO NOT lick your finger and thrust it up into the wind, to ascertain which way its blowing.....!!!! Recent polling could be a warning sign to House Democrats that they failed to convince the public that President Trump should be impeached when they held hearings on the matter last week, Washington Post reporter Rachael Bade said on Tuesday. "I do think that this polling, is sort of a warning sign for them. I mean, if they’re not able to move public sentiment at all with those five hearings with ... a dozen State Department or [National Security Council] officials coming forward and testifying against the president," Bade told CNN. "I mean, that's a problem for them. I mean, this should be a high point for them in terms of making the case to the voters." CNN's John King reported on polling that showed 40 percent of Americans believed Democrats were abusing their constitutional powers. Polling has shown that both independents and Democrats have started to lose interest in impeachment. Meanwhile, 50 percent of independents questioned in an NPR/PBS/Marist poll conducted Nov. 11-15 did not support impeaching and removing Trump from office, with just 42 percent backing such a move. NO, NO, NO....you said you have a responsibility, you made some extremely serious charges against the office of the president, you can not just say, "Well it doesn't serve us well...now" WTF....????? |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by Mavigogun on 11/26/19 at 18:20:16 4E5D45585D4B5B3C0 wrote:
Who, that matters, are you quoting? Be specific. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by raydawg on 11/26/19 at 19:12:27 64687F606E666E7C67090 wrote:
Who, that matters, are you quoting? Be specific. [/quote] That is my assertion...... Why would you employ a a focus group, OR....rely upon a "poll" In deciding how to impeach Trump.... If you are NOT concerned about any politico fall out? How many times have we heard this is not a popularity contest, or a way to stifle and hamstring Trump, but their ( democrats ) duty? Sounds like they are trying to decided a business deal, not rising to the occasion, of their own beliefs.....but weighing consequences, if these reports are accurate. Why would CNN and WaPo run such.....??? |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by raydawg on 11/26/19 at 19:47:16 Is this how they think....? Endless investigations, abuse of power, etc? This amounts to obstruction of governing, and should be prosecuted, accordingly....this amounts to blackmail and threats, in my opinion. disgraceful If Trump is that bad, IMPEACH HIM! Democrats, don't hand impeachment to Mitch McConnell by David Faris https://theweek.com/articles/880252/democrats-dont-hand-impeachment-mitch-mcconnell House Democrats are about to make a big mistake. There are indications from leading House Democrats that they intend to wrap up their impeachment inquiry soon, drafting as many as four articles of impeachment against President Trump. This is folly. Instead of bringing the hearings to a close, House Democrats should be firing subpoenas off at the White House and delaying Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) inevitable whitewash for as long as possible. Let's start with what has worked so far in the Democrats impeachment inquiry. The witnesses who testified before the House told a remarkably coherent story. Like an episode of Showtime's The Affair, the same events were told from slightly different perspectives, resulting in occasional clashes over details but little difference in the underlying narrative. The story was this: Beginning in the spring of 2019, various foreign policy professionals working in Ukraine grew concerned that official American foreign policy was being directed away from the national interests of the United States and toward what former National Security Council official Fiona Hill termed "a domestic political errand" to benefit President Trump's re-election campaign. A conspiracy had been launched under the auspices of the president's personal attorney, a comically unraveled Rudy Giuliani, and was so incompetently hidden that its architect himself repeatedly went on television and goofily revealed its contours for viewers. It principally involved Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Special Envoy Kurt Volker conditioning a White House meeting with President Trump and nearly $400 million in military assistance on new Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelensky opening up bogus investigations into Ukraine's imagined interference in the 2016 election, and former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter's service on the board of a Ukrainian energy firm called Burisma. In a way the hearings were anticlimactic, because in late September the White House released a rough and incomplete transcript of a July 25 phone call with Zelensky in which Trump asks the Ukrainian leader for a "favor" that involves investigating the Bidens and the right-wing sweat-dream about Ukraine's subversion of the 2016 election. There has never been any substantive doubt whatsoever that Trump wanted these investigations announced, if not actually pursued, not least because our ignominious leader keeps going on Fox and confirming it, as he did on Friday. But what Democrats did was put a group of mostly career public officials before Congress to testify to everything that they knew and had heard about the plot. Acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor described the "irregular channel" led by Giuliani, and relayed clear understandings given to him by Sondland in particular about what was happening. Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch described how she was unjustly pushed out of her post because she stood in the way of this scheme. Sondland himself testified, most explosively, that he sought a "quid pro quo" from Zelensky and was acting at "the express direction of the president." Hill talked about her growing concern that normal channels of policymaking were being deliberately avoided so that Giuliani could carry out his "errand." Diplomat David Holmes described overhearing an open-air phone conversation that the president had with Sondland when he was in Kyiv in which the president could be heard asking for the investigations. Throughout the process, these calm, unflappable professionals endured hours of completely off-the-wall questioning from Republicans who had only two strategies. One, they would relentlessly try to legitimize the president's interests in these investigations by reading febrile nonsense into the official record about Hunter Biden and random DNC staffers. Two, they would try to argue that none of the witnesses had first-hand knowledge of President Trump ordering the investigations or extorting Zelensky in exchange for them. This narrative-building task was passed off to the six most irritating and aggressive people in the House Republican caucus, who without any sense of shame tried to give cover to the president's paranoid delusions by shouting them at people who had to act composed and act like this insanity was somehow normal behavior. And then, suddenly, it was over. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) announced Friday that Democrats would not go to court to force testimony from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former National Security Advisor John Bolton, among others. The ongoing failure to seek testimony from Giuliani himself and his various henchmen like Lev Parnas is also incomprehensible from a strategic perspective. There is some chance that their testimony could be compelled by Chief Justice John Roberts during a Senate trial, but then again there is a chance that Roberts will side with his Republican patrons. In any case, this means that House Democrats will be voting on articles of impeachment having rolled over for obstruction while allowing their GOP colleagues to continue grandstanding about hearsay and second-hand evidence. It is President Trump and his allies who are hiding the most important witnesses to these events in the equivalent of a narrative safehouse and refusing to release critical documents to House investigators. Concluding the impeachment inquiry without a more sustained effort to fight this obstruction in court feels like surrender. And despite the fact that the president's bribery and extortion scheme was quite public and really not very much in dispute, it would still help build credibility for the general public to hear from these witnesses. Finally, if Democrats vote on articles of impeachment sometime in the next few weeks, they are essentially turning over the denouement of this saga to McConnell and his Republican vassals in the Senate. They are already salivating over the possibility of tying up leading Democratic contenders for president in weeks of mandatory-attendance trial proceedings, effectively granting McConnell, our premier procedural manipulator, the opportunity to kneecap multiple potential 2020 opponents including Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vermont), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), possibly through Super Tuesday or beyond if Kentucky's makeshift Machiavelli wishes it to be so. The better path for the party would be to continue holding impeachment hearings indefinitely, while they await court rulings about the testimony of Mulvaney, Bolton, and others. Hold an impeachment hearing a week from now until next October, and pass a dozen or more articles of impeachment just before the election so McConnell never has a chance to run interference for the president. Is there some law that says this must only be about Ukraine? Why not schedule hearings about the president's decision to order agents of the federal government to commit ongoing crimes against humanity at the U.S.-Mexico border? Why not some hearings about the Trump administration's relentless self-dealing? This is what today's ruthless Republicans would do. For Democrats to quietly wrap up their inquiry like good little boys and girls and then wait patiently for other institutions in the American political system to do the right thing is beyond delusional. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by Mavigogun on 11/26/19 at 20:36:58 41524A57524454330 wrote:
The circumstance, sadly, isn't as simple as "is there evidence of a crime"- advocates for law and order have to win over the electorate. Why is that? As long as GOP members of the Senate believe folks like you, Mark, and the rest of your cadre don't care what crimes Trump commits, they will not vote to impeach. That's a no-bainer- everybody knows that. My dog knows that. So, how much evidence is enough? Not for conviction- there is plenty for that -but to prompt folks to distance themselves from this corrupt President? Many haven't payed any attention to the impeachment testimony- even folks here who seem obsessed with politics haven't actually bothered to hear the evidence for themselves. Further thwarting common consensus, the Administration and their cronies are waging an active disinformation campaign. So, members of the House should seek additional witness testimony, including from the many who have defied Congress' edict to appear. Likewise, additional documents should be conveyed as the Administration continues to loose in court. Why not take that path? Those in Contempt of Congress may be imprisoned. Why not exercise that power? To what extent dose our democracy depend on the good faith participation of all? At what point does "should" become meaningless before the McConnell Caucus? How many demagoging Jim Jordan's does it take to create a Constitutional Crisis without a solution? How many Lindsey Grahams choosing profit over principle? How many Devin Nunes actively conspiring in support of the corrupt President? When will it be enough? I don't know, Ray- that's something you can answer better than just about anyone, me thinks. Is there any behavior from the President that would compel your condemnation? I doubt it. The President had your number when he said he could shoot someone in full view on the street and not loose support. He didn't expect you would look away from the spectacle to get away with his crimes, Ray- he just predicted you would do what you're doing now. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by raydawg on 11/26/19 at 20:48:28 If you you dog knows, then goodness, it should be readily visible to those who are have a IQ, above your dog.... Or. Facts aren't really important on this forum. Easier to repeat what I was told, or read on a website I like than to research real policy and make an educated decision. In the end, as in bottom line, the majority will rule, regardless how you feel or think, about them.... After all, elections have consequence. Thanks for trying to answer my question, but your urge to protect your own beliefs, seems to always result in a defensive deflection instead. HAPPY THANKSGIVING..... :) |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by Mavigogun on 11/26/19 at 21:00:36 What more do you need, Ray? Trump bent our national security interests to his personal political needs, soliciting an ally nation to propagandize against the guy Trump sees as his primary opponent in the next election. Those are crimes, Ray. Those are the "important facts". Sadly, the majority does not rule when it comes to selecting a President. Nor does it rule in the Senate, where representation is radically disproportionate to populations. How do I feel about the majority? A good deal better than what a privileged minority has delivered us. Asking you what would be enough wasn't a deflection, Ray- it's where we are at. We're waiting on you. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by raydawg on 11/26/19 at 21:22:35 Balls in your court, prove it, that is the way it has always been...... Win folks over with facts, not obfuscation, certainly not, name calling. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by Mavigogun on 11/26/19 at 21:51:57 Watch all the testimony, Ray- the House has been sending balls in your direction for a week now; if you look toward your feet, you'll find you are up to your knees in balls. Your accusations of obfuscation are baseless- there's only so much of your food I'll chew for you. I am not without limits, nor do I enjoy wasting my time demonstrating record to one who maintains enough willful ignorance to deny what is readily apparent. I can't think for you. I can't care for you. I can't bring a cloud of record into focus for you. You have earned little flattery. There's a difference between calling out behavior and "name calling". Want praise rather than castigation? Wan't a participation award? Earn it. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by Mavigogun on 11/26/19 at 22:12:45 "And then, suddenly, it was over. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) announced Friday that Democrats would not go to court to force testimony from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former National Security Advisor John Bolton, among others." I can't find anything to support this claim. Pelosi said Thursday that they would not be holding up impeachment proceedings to play out long court battles to compel testimony- pretty much the opposite of "and then it was over". Nor did she say they would not be compelling testimony from these defiant three- implying that those efforts were ongoing. Speaker Pelosi: "That's all in the court, about whether the Congress, as the court has declared in the case of Richard Nixon, unanimously – the Congress has the right to subpoena and to inquiry, and they should be coming before us. They keep taking it to court, and, no, we're not going to wait until the courts decide. "That might be information that's available to the Senate, in terms of how far we go and when we go. But we can't – we can’t wait for that, because, again, it's a technique. It's obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress. So we cannot let their further obstruction of Congress be an impediment to our honoring our oath of office." You can read the transcript yourself, here: https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/112119-1 ...or you can continue to let somebody else filter events to the shape of their limited comprehension. |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by pg on 11/27/19 at 03:52:21 4A59415C594F5F380 wrote:
He can't do it, just no substance there.... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by NHLycan on 11/27/19 at 04:13:51 We're back to discussing the relative roundness of the Earth, it seems. Here's 2¢. If you don't believe the president broke the law, I won't debate you. There's no need. You fall into one of two buckets, crazy or liar. Neither of those groups is fixable. They are immune to facts. If you're crazy, I should and do pity you. Full stop. For all I know, you've a brain tumor. Agitating the nuts prosper no one. If you're a liar, I can speculate endlessly as to your motivation. Are you actually a traitor? Or a Russian patriot? Run of the mill nihilist? Something less sinister? Suffering from the predictable cognitive decline brought on by a combination of Fox News, high blood pressure and diabetes? You tell me. If there's a world out there where it matters which one of those you are, well sorry, but this isn't it. You either gave up your humanity or had it taken away. I'm of the habit to pour these two buckets of uselessness; crazy and dishonest, together down the drain. If you disagree, I get that. There's certainly a value in dragging as many people as possible back from where Fantasy Land Lane and Bullshit Boulevard intersect. I applaud those who dedicate a portion of their time to this sort of rehabilitation. Kudos. I just decline to do so. Like brain surgery, it's not a skill that I possess. Warmest regards, |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by WebsterMark on 11/27/19 at 04:54:10 If you don't believe the president broke the law, I won't debate you. There's no need. You fall into one of two buckets, crazy or liar. Neither of those groups is fixable. They are immune to facts. Wow, that's incredible! You have complete knowledge, a crystal clear view of events and motivations that occurred inside the minds of people long ago and far away. It's almost as if you're, gulp....God or something.... Ok, maybe not The God, but at least a little 'g' god..... I'm not immune to facts its just the incidents you consider facts are hardly black and white facts. I imagine if you were accused of a crime based on the exact same set of circumstances, you'd protest those "facts". |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by T And T Garage on 11/27/19 at 05:48:39 6B6D695C46444B250 wrote:
Beautiful NHL!.... Simply....Beautiful! |
|
Title: Re: Look...you must. Post by Mavigogun on 11/27/19 at 06:01:08 6A585F4E49584F705C4F563D0 wrote:
Your basis for too much, Mark. NHLycan's got your number. You've built this impression, Mark- you are in control of the impression you make. Proclaiming yourself well reasoned and considerate is like declaring yourself the winner of a race far from the finish line as others run past. Everybody can see your position- it's up to you to change it. If you can. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |