The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Political discussions
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by Ibanez »

GannonFan wrote:
Ibanez wrote: No, i'm saying that if the Senate doesn't allow the evidence to be admitted nor all any witnesses to be examined, then they are basically rubber stamping an acquittal. How can you possibly have a trial without presenting any evidence? Yes, we all know what has been said and what not, but evidence still needs to be submitted. It was done so in the Clinton Impeachment.

It all seems extremely shady to me.
But isn't that just a formality? We're in a 24/7 news world, we've heard this evidence over and over again since this all began. Nothing new is being presented, simply just the formal acknowledgment that the evidence is "submitted". Why does that make a difference? Aren't we just getting hung up on a word rather than examining the evidence that's been in plain sight for months now? If a Senator is going to ignore the evidence it doesn't matter if it's "submitted" or not, they're already going to ignore it. And if a Senator is going to vote either to remove from office or not, they can and will already do that knowing all of this evidence, again, whether it is "submitted" or not. The House Managers get to talk for 24 hours about this evidence, heck, they could read it all if they really wanted to.
Submitting evidence in a trial is a formality? :suspicious: It's process.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by Ibanez »

89Hen wrote:
Ibanez wrote:It all seems extremely shady to me.
It is in Congress you know that?
Touche :lol:
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
User avatar
Skjellyfetti
Anal
Anal
Posts: 14411
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
I am a fan of: Appalachian

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by Skjellyfetti »

GannonFan wrote:
Ibanez wrote: No, i'm saying that if the Senate doesn't allow the evidence to be admitted nor all any witnesses to be examined, then they are basically rubber stamping an acquittal. How can you possibly have a trial without presenting any evidence? Yes, we all know what has been said and what not, but evidence still needs to be submitted. It was done so in the Clinton Impeachment.

It all seems extremely shady to me.
But isn't that just a formality? We're in a 24/7 news world, we've heard this evidence over and over again since this all began. Nothing new is being presented, simply just the formal acknowledgment that the evidence is "submitted". Why does that make a difference? Aren't we just getting hung up on a word rather than examining the evidence that's been in plain sight for months now? If a Senator is going to ignore the evidence it doesn't matter if it's "submitted" or not, they're already going to ignore it. And if a Senator is going to vote either to remove from office or not, they can and will already do that knowing all of this evidence, again, whether it is "submitted" or not. The House Managers get to talk for 24 hours about this evidence, heck, they could read it all if they really wanted to.
You think the impeachment trial in the Constitution is just supposed to be a vote on whether or not to convict based on evidence gather in the HoR? Not how other trials or impeachments have worked... but, ok. :roll:
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18038
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by GannonFan »

Skjellyfetti wrote:
GannonFan wrote:
But isn't that just a formality? We're in a 24/7 news world, we've heard this evidence over and over again since this all began. Nothing new is being presented, simply just the formal acknowledgment that the evidence is "submitted". Why does that make a difference? Aren't we just getting hung up on a word rather than examining the evidence that's been in plain sight for months now? If a Senator is going to ignore the evidence it doesn't matter if it's "submitted" or not, they're already going to ignore it. And if a Senator is going to vote either to remove from office or not, they can and will already do that knowing all of this evidence, again, whether it is "submitted" or not. The House Managers get to talk for 24 hours about this evidence, heck, they could read it all if they really wanted to.
You think the impeachment trial in the Constitution is just supposed to be a vote on whether or not to convict based on evidence gather in the HoR? Not how other trials or impeachments have worked... but, ok. :roll:
Hey, I'm all game, tell me how we did the Clinton and the Johnson impeachments were fundamentally different at this point. Sure, the HoR had more stuff in the Clinton one since we had a special prosecutor and that's where a lot of the formal evidence came from, but what new stuff came up during the trial in the Senate? Even with the witnesses, they basically said what they said when they were witnesses in the investigation (heck, sometimes they didn't even called them back and just used the recorded statements from the witnesses).

We know what we need to know - Trump wanted an investigation into the Biden's ties in the Ukraine, he wanted to hold back the money that he couldn't legally hold back (for a month and a half at least) as a means of leverage, and when Congress wanted to investigate all of this during the impeachment inquiry Trump wasn't cooperative. And we have evidence of all of that. Oh, and Trump is a fairly despicable kind of guy to boot. The only decision now is whether to remove him from office for that. The details that are being argued over now do nothing to change any of that.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by kalm »

GannonFan wrote:
Skjellyfetti wrote:
You think the impeachment trial in the Constitution is just supposed to be a vote on whether or not to convict based on evidence gather in the HoR? Not how other trials or impeachments have worked... but, ok. :roll:
Hey, I'm all game, tell me how we did the Clinton and the Johnson impeachments were fundamentally different at this point. Sure, the HoR had more stuff in the Clinton one since we had a special prosecutor and that's where a lot of the formal evidence came from, but what new stuff came up during the trial in the Senate? Even with the witnesses, they basically said what they said when they were witnesses in the investigation (heck, sometimes they didn't even called them back and just used the recorded statements from the witnesses).

We know what we need to know - Trump wanted an investigation into the Biden's ties in the Ukraine, he wanted to hold back the money that he couldn't legally hold back (for a month and a half at least) as a means of leverage, and when Congress wanted to investigate all of this during the impeachment inquiry Trump wasn't cooperative. And we have evidence of all of that. Oh, and Trump is a fairly despicable kind of guy to boot. The only decision now is whether to remove him from office for that. The details that are being argued over now do nothing to change any of that.
I agree.

So...would you vote to remove based on the current evidence?

(someone should start a poll on this)
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
89Hen
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 39223
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by 89Hen »

kalm wrote:So...would you vote to remove based on the current evidence?

(someone should start a poll on this)
It would be a very interesting poll.... NOT.

Yea - jso, kalm, jelly, trip, jeff, jon
Image
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18038
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by GannonFan »

kalm wrote:
GannonFan wrote:
Hey, I'm all game, tell me how we did the Clinton and the Johnson impeachments were fundamentally different at this point. Sure, the HoR had more stuff in the Clinton one since we had a special prosecutor and that's where a lot of the formal evidence came from, but what new stuff came up during the trial in the Senate? Even with the witnesses, they basically said what they said when they were witnesses in the investigation (heck, sometimes they didn't even called them back and just used the recorded statements from the witnesses).

We know what we need to know - Trump wanted an investigation into the Biden's ties in the Ukraine, he wanted to hold back the money that he couldn't legally hold back (for a month and a half at least) as a means of leverage, and when Congress wanted to investigate all of this during the impeachment inquiry Trump wasn't cooperative. And we have evidence of all of that. Oh, and Trump is a fairly despicable kind of guy to boot. The only decision now is whether to remove him from office for that. The details that are being argued over now do nothing to change any of that.
I agree.

So...would you vote to remove based on the current evidence?

(someone should start a poll on this)
Nah, I wouldn't. I've already said that. I was good with the impeachment as it was clear he wasn't going to be removed from office. If the Dems had the votes in the Senate I would've been good with just the censure. I think removing a President from office is really significant stuff - once we get that ball rolling it'll be a battle to define the criteria to do that lower and lower everytime. These things should be slam dunks if we're going to kick a President out of office. I didn't think Clinton should've been booted even though he broke the law when he perjured himself (heck, getting disbarred for that crime was a significant punishment). We have an election coming up in November, that's when the rest of the country gets to vote on this. Kick him out then if we want.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18038
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by GannonFan »

89Hen wrote:
kalm wrote:So...would you vote to remove based on the current evidence?

(someone should start a poll on this)
It would be a very interesting poll.... NOT.

Yea - jso, kalm, jelly, trip, jeff, jon
it's possible one of them could go with the "pee in the butt" voting option.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by kalm »

89Hen wrote:
kalm wrote:So...would you vote to remove based on the current evidence?

(someone should start a poll on this)
It would be a very interesting poll.... NOT.

Yea - jso, kalm, jelly, trip, jeff, jon
So I take that as a no from you?
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
89Hen
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 39223
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by 89Hen »

kalm wrote:
89Hen wrote: It would be a very interesting poll.... NOT.

Yea - jso, kalm, jelly, trip, jeff, jon
So I take that as a no from you?
I'm more likely to vote yes than anyone I listed is to vote no. But if I had to vote, I would choose no.
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by kalm »

89Hen wrote:
kalm wrote:
So I take that as a no from you?
I'm more likely to vote yes than anyone I listed is to vote no. But if I had to vote, I would choose no.
Because he’s innocent or the crimes don’t merit removal from office?
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 18038
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by GannonFan »

kalm wrote:
89Hen wrote: I'm more likely to vote yes than anyone I listed is to vote no. But if I had to vote, I would choose no.
Because he’s innocent or the crimes don’t merit removal from office?
Loaded question there. Do you write survey questions too on the side? :rofl:
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by AZGrizFan »

kalm wrote:
89Hen wrote: I'm more likely to vote yes than anyone I listed is to vote no. But if I had to vote, I would choose no.
Because he’s innocent or the crimes don’t merit removal from office?
yes. :coffee:
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
89Hen
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 39223
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by 89Hen »

CAA Flagship wrote:
kalm wrote:
So why even have a trial to begin with?
It's procedure.
That's like asking why the FCS season is played when we all know who will win the NC game.
:lol: well played
Image
User avatar
89Hen
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 39223
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by 89Hen »

GannonFan wrote:
kalm wrote:
Because he’s innocent or the crimes don’t merit removal from office?
Loaded question there. Do you write survey questions too on the side? :rofl:
No kidding.
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by kalm »

GannonFan wrote:
kalm wrote:
Because he’s innocent or the crimes don’t merit removal from office?
Loaded question there. Do you write survey questions too on the side? :rofl:
Huh?

If he’s innocent he hasn’t committed crimes. Fairly straightforward question.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19955
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by UNI88 »

89Hen wrote:
kalm wrote:
So I take that as a no from you?
I'm more likely to vote yes than anyone I listed is to vote no. But if I had to vote, I would choose no.
I'm not so sure of that, I could see Kalm voting no. Let's call it 50/50 with him.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19955
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by UNI88 »

kalm wrote:
GannonFan wrote:
Loaded question there. Do you write survey questions too on the side? :rofl:
Huh?

If he’s innocent he hasn’t committed crimes. Fairly straightforward question.
He's a New York real estate developer and a politician, there's no way he's innocent. Of course, I feel the same way about the majority of nationally elected politicians.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by kalm »

UNI88 wrote:
kalm wrote:
Huh?

If he’s innocent he hasn’t committed crimes. Fairly straightforward question.
He's a New York real estate developer and a politician, there's no way he's innocent. Of course, I feel the same way about the majority of nationally elected politicians.
Me too. But I was talking innocent of the crimes he’s been impeached for.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by AZGrizFan »

kalm wrote:
GannonFan wrote:
Loaded question there. Do you write survey questions too on the side? :rofl:
Huh?

If he’s innocent he hasn’t committed crimes. Fairly straightforward question.
How about this answer: Because the HoR did a horrible job of making their case.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
89Hen
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 39223
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by 89Hen »

UNI88 wrote:
89Hen wrote: I'm more likely to vote yes than anyone I listed is to vote no. But if I had to vote, I would choose no.
I'm not so sure of that, I could see Kalm voting no. Let's call it 50/50 with him.
You're a 50/50, kalm is not.
Image
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19955
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by UNI88 »

89Hen wrote:
UNI88 wrote:
I'm not so sure of that, I could see Kalm voting no. Let's call it 50/50 with him.
You're a 50/50, kalm is not.
Let me rephrase that - he is as likely to vote no as your are to vote yes.

Based on what I know, I would vote no. Do I think Trump and his minions' activities were ethically questionable? Yes. Do I think they rise to the level of impeachable offenses? No.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
User avatar
89Hen
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 39223
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by 89Hen »

UNI88 wrote:
89Hen wrote: You're a 50/50, kalm is not.
Let me rephrase that - he is as likely to vote no as your are to vote yes.
C'mon, he's a straight ballot voter who eats tofu. :twisted:
Image
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by Ibanez »

GannonFan wrote:
Skjellyfetti wrote:
You think the impeachment trial in the Constitution is just supposed to be a vote on whether or not to convict based on evidence gather in the HoR? Not how other trials or impeachments have worked... but, ok. :roll:
Hey, I'm all game, tell me how we did the Clinton and the Johnson impeachments were fundamentally different at this point. Sure, the HoR had more stuff in the Clinton one since we had a special prosecutor and that's where a lot of the formal evidence came from, but what new stuff came up during the trial in the Senate? Even with the witnesses, they basically said what they said when they were witnesses in the investigation (heck, sometimes they didn't even called them back and just used the recorded statements from the witnesses).

We know what we need to know - Trump wanted an investigation into the Biden's ties in the Ukraine, he wanted to hold back the money that he couldn't legally hold back (for a month and a half at least) as a means of leverage, and when Congress wanted to investigate all of this during the impeachment inquiry Trump wasn't cooperative. And we have evidence of all of that. Oh, and Trump is a fairly despicable kind of guy to boot. The only decision now is whether to remove him from office for that. The details that are being argued over now do nothing to change any of that.
Evidence and Witnesses were allowed and called during Clinton's trial. The Republicans - you know the people who said there were no witness with first hand knowledge - don't want someone like Bolton to testify.

It looks like Mitch has changed the resolution with regards to evidence. Good.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

Post by Ibanez »

UNI88 wrote:
89Hen wrote: You're a 50/50, kalm is not.
Let me rephrase that - he is as likely to vote no as your are to vote yes.

Based on what I know, I would vote no. Do I think Trump and his minions' activities were ethically questionable? Yes. Do I think they rise to the level of impeachable offenses? No.
I think he's guilty as hell. However, i'm not sure his actions are impeachable.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Post Reply