Impeachment Hearings

messy said:
I just heard this Congresswoman shouting how the impeachment is “rigged.” Exactly like Trump shouting how the election was “rigged.”
Click to expand...
You mean Maxine shouting to impeaimpeach Trump his first week in office? Or was it when she got "gaveled" out?
 
People voted for what t said he was about, they voted for hope and change. The only hope t has left is that he hasn't given away too much to putin and other adversaries who act like they will be his friend . . . and the only change is that the GOP is now simply a cult of personality.
 
Slowly but perceptibly, the Trump administration is moving towards a concrete defense in the president’s Senate impeachment trial: Not that Donald Trump didn’t pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, but that he did — and that there’s nothing wrong with it.

The latest indication of this direction comes from the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who in a couple of press interviews has acknowledged his role in advising President Trump to arrange the firing of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, because Giuliani believed she stood in the way of getting those investigations.

If Trump wanted to focus on the impeachment defense that there was no quid pro quo and that he innocently asked for the investigations in order to fight corruption, then it would be genuinely crazy for his personal lawyer to reveal the specifics of how and what he communicated to the president. Giuliani’s statements are terribly harmful to Trump’s case — and he has now effectively waived attorney-client privilege, so he could be called to testify.

news.yahoo.com

Giuliani Hints at New Defense: So What If Trump Did It?

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Slowly but perceptibly, the Trump administration is moving towards a concrete defense in the president’s Senate impeachment trial: Not that Donald Trump didn’t pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, but that he did — and that there’s nothing wrong with...
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
 
Hüsker Dü said:
People voted for what t said he was about, they voted for hope and change. The only hope t has left is that he hasn't given away too much to putin and other adversaries who act like they will be his friend . . . and the only change is that the GOP is now simply a cult of personality.
Click to expand...
So what is today? Tequila shots in the morning to take the edge off? Your post sound like your well into those shots...
 
Rick Perry: Donald Trump will destroy the Republican Party

“He offers a barking carnival act that can be best described as Trumpism: a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition if pursued,” Perry charged during an address at the Willard Hotel in downtown Washington. “Let no one be mistaken: Donald Trump’s candidacy is a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised and discarded.”

“Most telling to me,” Perry said of Trump, is “his admission that there is not a single time in his life that he sought the forgiveness of God.”
 
espola said:
According to the House of Representatives webpage, Duncan D Hunter of California's 50th district is still a Member. That means he will be eligible to vote on the impeachment bill, even though he has announced that he will be retiring after the new year turns (I suspect that the delayed resignation is a ploy to earn another year on his Congressional pension).

He really has nothing to lose politically, unless he thinks there is a place for him in California Republican politics despite his ruined reputation. He has taken at least twice an oath to defend the Constitution, so this would be a good time to admit reality and vote the impeachment bill.
Click to expand...

From today's vote tally:

Duncan Hunter (CA-50) Article 1: Not Voting Article 2: Not Voting

So I got half my wish - or maybe was just not allowed to do it.
 
Multi Sport said:
BIPARTISAN..
Click to expand...

In the history of American politics, at least since the politics simmered down to just two parties having any say in things, the word "bipartisan support" has come to mean having majority support by both major parties. For example the VA Website Accessibility Act of 2018 which passed the House 387-0 (and then was ignored by the Senate). Recently, some politicians have perverted that to mean that if they had just one vote from the opposition it was "bipartisan", or even worse, they put "bipartisan" in the bill title (e.g. - Bipartisan Enhanced Background Check Bill of 2019, a bill that ended up with 0 Republican votes).

But you can go ahead with your own definitions. We will just keep in mind that when you post you are often speaking politics, not English.
 
espola said:
From today's vote tally:

Duncan Hunter (CA-50) Article 1: Not Voting Article 2: Not Voting

So I got half my wish - or maybe was just not allowed to do it.
Click to expand...
Rumor has it he wanted to do the right thing on the way out, voting for impeachment, but was pressured into a no vote. I wonder what they know about him they used to blackmail him with?

The GOP playbook is wide open now, no holds barred, everything is ok.
 
espola said:
In the history of American politics, at least since the politics simmered down to just two parties having any say in things, the word "bipartisan support" has come to mean having majority support by both major parties. For example the VA Website Accessibility Act of 2018 which passed the House 387-0 (and then was ignored by the Senate). Recently, some politicians have perverted that to mean that if they had just one vote from the opposition it was "bipartisan", or even worse, they put "bipartisan" in the bill title (e.g. - Bipartisan Enhanced Background Check Bill of 2019, a bill that ended up with 0 Republican votes).

But you can go ahead with your own definitions. We will just keep in mind that when you post you are often speaking politics, not English.
Click to expand...
Funny how some of those that complain about politicians, and say trump isn't one, use the same language.
 
espola said:
In the history of American politics, at least since the politics simmered down to just two parties having any say in things, the word "bipartisan support" has come to mean having majority support by both major parties. For example the VA Website Accessibility Act of 2018 which passed the House 387-0 (and then was ignored by the Senate). Recently, some politicians have perverted that to mean that if they had just one vote from the opposition it was "bipartisan", or even worse, they put "bipartisan" in the bill title (e.g. - Bipartisan Enhanced Background Check Bill of 2019, a bill that ended up with 0 Republican votes).

But you can go ahead with your own definitions. We will just keep in mind that when you post you are often speaking politics, not English.
Click to expand...
Nice try e!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top