• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'We don’t have the votes': Graham says push to dismiss impeachment articles right away is 'dead'

Cardinal said:
Probably the strongest example of this is the DOJ. Trump knew that if he could subvert the DOJ to his will he'd have a powerful tool for persecuting his political enemies
Click to expand...



When has the DOJ persecuted Trump's political enemies?
 
Chomsky said:
Legacy? They long since have given up any of the noble qualities that could make for a positive legacy!

If the story were to become a book, it might be called: "Profiles in Cowardice"
Click to expand...

Seriously? I think the democrat party gave up the " noble qualities" high road during the whole Clinton, Lewinski, blue dress, cigar etc. Although Clinton was a good president, he'll always be remembered for Monica. I mean he changed the whole lexicon. Now when someone says, " Oh, that girl was fired for giving somebody a "monica". The oval office became the "oral office", oh and we can't forget about his "Cuban invasion". Yeah, the noble qualities legacy for a politician ship has definitely already sailed.:lamo
 
mrdeltoid said:
Seriously? I think the democrat party gave up the " noble qualities" high road during the whole Clinton, Lewinski, blue dress, cigar etc. Although Clinton was a good president, he'll always be remembered for Monica. I mean he changed the whole lexicon. Now when someone says, " Oh, that girl was fired for giving somebody a "monica". The oval office became the "oral office", oh and we can't forget about his "Cuban invasion". Yeah, the noble qualities legacy for a politician ship has definitely already sailed.:lamo
Click to expand...

Those are the first I've heard those phrases used. Will he "always be remembered" for them because you made them up just now?
 
mrdeltoid said:
Seriously? I think the democrat party gave up the " noble qualities" high road during the whole Clinton, Lewinski, blue dress, cigar etc. Although Clinton was a good president, he'll always be remembered for Monica. I mean he changed the whole lexicon. Now when someone says, " Oh, that girl was fired for giving somebody a "monica". The oval office became the "oral office", oh and we can't forget about his "Cuban invasion". Yeah, the noble qualities legacy for a politician ship has definitely already sailed.:lamo
Click to expand...
How did you tie-in the Clinton's to my post?
 
Re: 'We don’t have the votes': Graham says push to dismiss impeachment articles right away is 'dead'

Cardinal said:
Man, Bill Clinton must feel like a sucker. He could have employed the "People do things. Things happen." defense.

GOP Sen. Shelby on Trump soliciting foreign interference: "Things happen" - Axios
Click to expand...


...or the grifter defense.

Sen. Cornyn: There have been a "series of grifters" associated with Trump campaign - Axios


Cornyn criticized Democrats for wanting to "rest their case" on someone "under indictment in the Southern District of New York with extensive ties to Russian oligarchs and organized crime."


Trump is presently “under indictment.”
 
Re: 'We don’t have the votes': Graham says push to dismiss impeachment articles right away is 'dea

Rexedgar said:
...or the grifter defense.

Sen. Cornyn: There have been a "series of grifters" associated with Trump campaign - Axios


Cornyn criticized Democrats for wanting to "rest their case" on someone "under indictment in the Southern District of New York with extensive ties to Russian oligarchs and organized crime."


Trump is presently “under indictment.”
Click to expand...

Here’s another one Clinton should have used. “It’s the fault of the world. The world is a mean place.”
 
joko104 said:
:roll: I suppose in theory a more stupid sentence could be written.

"Despite Vegans think eating meat is a crime, my client did not commit a crime eating a hamburger." Your conclusion, that client committed the crime of eating a hamburger.

"Abuse of power" is just a political slogan, nothing else. It is anything anyone with any power does that another person doesn't like. Nothing else.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt that defense is going to get much traction....


Abuse of Power: misuse of power by someone in a position of authority who can use the leverage they have to oppress persons in an inferior position or to induce them to commit a wrongful act.


§ 11.448 Abuse of office.

A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor if, knowing that his or her conduct is illegal, he or she:

(a) Subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or

(b) Denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (Washington Examiner) We don’t have the votes': Graham says push to dismiss impeachment articles right away is 'dead'

With this loss, it appears Trump & McConnel have fully capitulated to actually having a trial.

Looks like Round 1 went to Pelosi, and soon we'll see who gets Round 2 (witnesses).
Click to expand...

I figured that out from McConnell’s remarks earlier in the week, when his rhetoric stopped referring to the trial in theoretical terms. It was a small change in rhetoric. But, it’s the kind of small change that communicates to the political class very clearly.

The noise machine has been rocked back on its heels by the Parnas interviews. Especially as they were accompanies by documents, and resisted almost as many questions as they answered.

Everyone knows that there’s a lot more where that came from. And few doubt, that the Chinese water torture of revelations will continue to drip day by day, throughout the impeachment trial.

Which essentially negates the arguments against having witnesses. The only reason that Trump’s team doesn’t want them, is to keep them from having to admit what went on, or take the Fifth before the whole world.

It’s going to be on everyone’s screens and front pages either way.

Parnas has been trying to spill the beans since the moment he and Igor got pinched trying to skip the country after having lunch with Crazy Uncle Rudy at the boss’ hoteL

It’s a mark of Pelosi’s astounding political skill that she was able to withold it for use for maximum political advantage.

It effectively insured that witnesses will be allowed at the impeachment trial.
 
TomFitz said:
I figured that out from McConnell’s remarks earlier in the week, when his rhetoric stopped referring to the trial in theoretical terms. It was a small change in rhetoric. But, it’s the kind of small change that communicates to the political class very clearly.

The noise machine has been rocked back on its heels by the Parnas interviews. Especially as they were accompanies by documents, and resisted almost as many questions as they answered.

Everyone knows that there’s a lot more where that came from. And few doubt, that the Chinese water torture of revelations will continue to drip day by day, throughout the impeachment trial.

Which essentially negates the arguments against having witnesses. The only reason that Trump’s team doesn’t want them, is to keep them from having to admit what went on, or take the Fifth before the whole world.

It’s going to be on everyone’s screens and front pages either way.

Parnas has been trying to spill the beans since the moment he and Igor got pinched trying to skip the country after having lunch with Crazy Uncle Rudy at the boss’ hoteL

It’s a mark of Pelosi’s astounding political skill that she was able to withold it for use for maximum political advantage.

It effectively insured that witnesses will be allowed at the impeachment trial.
Click to expand...
Yeah - Pelos's really looking like the skilled player, here. She is doing a lot with what she's got, given the power structure she's going-up against in Trump-McConnell. I'm sure any incoming or progressive Dem rep that thought it was time for new blood holding the gavel, is now happy as hell Pelosi was chosen - and would not want the job if offered!
 
Re: 'We don’t have the votes': Graham says push to dismiss impeachment articles right away is 'dea

Rexedgar said:
...or the grifter defense.

Sen. Cornyn: There have been a "series of grifters" associated with Trump campaign - Axios


Cornyn criticized Democrats for wanting to "rest their case" on someone "under indictment in the Southern District of New York with extensive ties to Russian oligarchs and organized crime."


Trump is presently “under indictment.”
Click to expand...


That’s actually hilarious! Especially when you consider that when John Cornyn was Texas Attorney General when Casino Jack Abramoff was busy shaking down Indian casinos for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee!
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (Washington Examiner) We don’t have the votes': Graham says push to dismiss impeachment articles right away is 'dead'

With this loss, it appears Trump & McConnel have fully capitulated to actually having a trial.

Looks like Round 1 went to Pelosi, and soon we'll see who gets Round 2 (witnesses).
Click to expand...
Lets be real about this. Whichever side you fall on, there should be a trial. Lets have the discussion and both sides need to accept letting the chips where they fall.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
TomFitz said:
I figured that out from McConnell’s remarks earlier in the week, when his rhetoric stopped referring to the trial in theoretical terms. It was a small change in rhetoric. But, it’s the kind of small change that communicates to the political class very clearly.

The noise machine has been rocked back on its heels by the Parnas interviews. Especially as they were accompanies by documents, and resisted almost as many questions as they answered.

Everyone knows that there’s a lot more where that came from. And few doubt, that the Chinese water torture of revelations will continue to drip day by day, throughout the impeachment trial.

Which essentially negates the arguments against having witnesses. The only reason that Trump’s team doesn’t want them, is to keep them from having to admit what went on, or take the Fifth before the whole world.

It’s going to be on everyone’s screens and front pages either way.

Parnas has been trying to spill the beans since the moment he and Igor got pinched trying to skip the country after having lunch with Crazy Uncle Rudy at the boss’ hoteL

It’s a mark of Pelosi’s astounding political skill that she was able to withold it for use for maximum political advantage.

It effectively insured that witnesses will be allowed at the impeachment trial.
Click to expand...

Parnas doesn’t want to end up in Federal custody and have another ‘perfect storm,’ Ala Epstein.
 
trouble13 said:
Lets be real about this. Whichever side you fall on, there should be a trial. Lets have the discussion and both sides need to accept letting the chips where they fall.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yep.



.
 
Rexedgar said:
Parnas doesn’t want to end up in Federal custody and have another ‘perfect storm,’ Ala Epstein.
Click to expand...

FYI - It was recently announced the Feds claim they lost the tape of Epstein's (first?) suicide attempt.
 
Chomsky said:
FYI - It was recently announced the Feds claim they lost the tape of Epstein's (first?) suicide attempt.
Click to expand...

How many things had to be just so?

1) Guards didn’t do their rounds.
2) Epstein wasn’t on suicide watch, (just been removed, iirc)
3) Had a sheet; I went to juvie solitary and they made me give up my shoelaces.
4) Epstein had recently been injured, self-inflicted?
5) No video

I miss any?
 
Rexedgar said:
How many things had to be just so?

1) Guards didn’t do their rounds.
2) Epstein wasn’t on suicide watch, (just been removed, iirc)
3) Had a sheet; I went to juvie solitary and they made me give up my shoelaces.
4) Epstein had recently been injured, self-inflicted?
5) No video

I miss any?
Click to expand...
The chain of command, of those in charge?

Trump --> Barr --> xx --> Epstein
 
Captain Adverse said:
Despite the suggestion it could happen, I never expected it would.

The Republican's (IMO most anyway) want to give the impression of a fair process, in contrast to the "unfair" process leading to a purely partisan vote in the House to Impeach.

I expect McConnel to push for a vote of not guilty after whatever evidence is entered by the House and the President's defense team.

I am not sure that there will be many actual witnesses, but one never knows.
Click to expand...

The president and his attorney's were invited but declined so I can see nothing unfair about it.
 
Chomsky said:
The chain of command, of those in charge?

Trump --> Barr --> xx --> Epstein
Click to expand...

XX reminds me of the MAD Magazine SPY vs SPY comics.

When one or the other was killed the artist put X’s for the eyes, iirc.
 
Rexedgar said:
XX reminds me of the MAD Magazine SPY vs SPY comics.

When one or the other was killed the artist put X’s for the eyes, iirc.
Click to expand...
It was either 'xx', or 'xxx'! :2razz:
 
Captain Adverse said:
Despite the suggestion it could happen, I never expected it would.

The Republican's (IMO most anyway) want to give the impression of a fair process, in contrast to the "unfair" process leading to a purely partisan vote in the House to Impeach.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, okay, let's put that to the test given your past reviews of Republican actions:

------------------------------------

Captain Adverse said:
1. Why should anyone care about "concerns" of Democrats in government? Their #1 concern has been trying to find a way to impeach this President by hook or crook from day 1 of his election. They have never been "fair and impartial" at any point either before or after they won a majority in the House in 2018.
Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:
You think this is valid or surprising?


As I pointed out in another thread, the Impeachment vote was divided exactly along partisan lines.

The only bipartisan voting was Democrats (2 for Article I and 3 for Article II) voting Nay with Republicans.


Not to mention the absolutely partisan process of the "investigation."


But despite this, you think it is okay for a vote to be taken along partisan lines, and then refuse to forward the results to the Senate because "We fear the Republicans will vote against in a partisanly unfair manner?" :roll:
Click to expand...

Gee golly, here I was thinking you had figured out that Republicans didn't need to be fair cause who cares about the Democrats?

Now that Parnas has come out, and basically supported with literally hundreds of pieces of evidence the claims made during the impeachment hearings, you 'feel' like Republicans really are trying to be fair. Isn't it more likely that Lindsey Graham has been neutered by the inability of House members to conceal their own involvement in the crimes that took place, and now you're reverting course to claim that Republicans really are trying to be fair here?

I mean, it seems to me like a few weeks ago you were looking for unfairness or didn't care for fairness cause the Democrats had been assholes or whatever. Now, it's about really trying to be fair. Which is it, CA?

Who knows. Who knows. Who knows.

:roll:
 
Captain Adverse said:
Despite the suggestion it could happen, I never expected it would.

The Republican's (IMO most anyway) want to give the impression of a fair process, in contrast to the "unfair" process leading to a purely partisan vote in the House to Impeach.

I expect McConnel to push for a vote of not guilty after whatever evidence is entered by the House and the President's defense team.

I am not sure that there will be many actual witnesses, but one never knows.
Click to expand...

The only reason it was 'purely partisan' is because the republicans are scared to death of trump and his base and want to keep their seats. Party above country.
 
Hatuey said:
Hmmm, okay, let's put that to the test given your past reviews of Republican actions:

------------------------------------





Gee golly, here I was thinking you had figured out that Republicans didn't need to be fair cause who cares about the Democrats?

Now that Parnas has come out, and basically supported with literally hundreds of pieces of evidence the claims made during the impeachment hearings, you 'feel' like Republicans really are trying to be fair. Isn't it more likely that Lindsey Graham has been neutered by the inability of House members to conceal their own involvement in the crimes that took place, and now you're reverting course to claim that Republicans really are trying to be fair here?

I mean, it seems to me like a few weeks ago you were looking for unfairness or didn't care for fairness cause the Democrats had been assholes or whatever. Now, it's about really trying to be fair. Which is it, CA?

Who knows. Who knows. Who knows.

:roll:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you think you've made any particular point citing my prior posts.

Nothing you've cited undermines anything I have subsequently posted. In fact they just reinforce what I have been stating all along. :shrug:

As for the Senate? They KNOW these charges are B.S..

That is evidenced when the Democrats, who could not prove "bribery, extortion, conspiracy to undermine an election," or any other actual charges, had to resort to "Abuse of Authority" and "Obstruction of Congress." Both charges I've already explained have no merit.

Meanwhile, I don't care about "Parnas," nor the propaganda about his value as a "witness" you have been spoon-fed by the MSM. Just like all the other "gotcha witnesses" (Cohen, et.al.) of the past, IMO nothing he says at this point has any contributing value.

The Democrats rushed the investigation. They refused to follow normal judicial proceedings to compel alleged "fact" witnesses because they did not want to "waste time" in Court. They refused to take it slow and steady, a step by step investigation to find evidence, because it was somehow "Urgent" to Impeach right away. Then tried to stall delivering the Articles until public pressure forced them to.

There was no "fairness" in them. Here we have GOP Senator's insisting on at least the forms of fairness. That does not mean they don't intend to vote to acquit. The charges have no merit.

Try again. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I'm sorry, but I don't see how you think you've made any particular point citing my prior posts.

Nothing you've cited undermines anything I have subsequently posted. In fact they just reinforce what I have been stating all along. :shrug:

As for the Senate? They KNOW these charges are B.S..
Click to expand...

That's not what you said though, a few months ago, it didn't matter whether they had to be fair or not. Hell, you yourself said it didn't matter what Democrats thought cause they'd made no effort to be fair since before or after 2018. Now this new evidence gets released and all of the sudden, the GOP is really trying to be fair cause they don't have the votes to dismiss outright?

What happened to who cares what Democrats think about fairness?

That is evidenced when the Democrats, who could not prove "bribery, extortion, conspiracy to undermine an election," or any other actual charges, had to resort to "Abuse of Authority" and "Obstruction of Congress." Both charges I've already explained have no merit.

Meanwhile, I don't care about "Parnas," nor the propaganda about his value as a "witness" you have been spoon-fed by the MSM. Just like all the other "gotcha witnesses" (Cohen, et.al.) of the past, nothing he says has any contributing value.

The Democrats rushed the investigation. They refused to follow normal judicial proceedings to compel alleged "fact" witnesses because they did not want to "waste time" in Court. They refused to take it slow and steady, a step by step investigation to find evidence, because it was somehow "Urgent" to Impeach right away. Then tried to stall delivering the Articles until public pressure forced them to.

There was no "fairness" in them. Here we have GOP Senator's insisting on at least the forms of fairness. That does not mean they don't intend to vote to acquit. The charges have no merit.

Try again. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

They intend to vote a certain way, they've already figured out the trial, they don't care for the witnesses, nobody should care what Democrats think or additional evidence but... deep down inside they're trying to be fair?

That's an embarrassing position to take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom