(10-30-2019, 02:05 PM)Maggot Wrote: The bubble gum guy    It's a resolution though a vote on the "resolution"

The bubble gum guy blows; always popping off with fake news.  Don't let it stick to the bottom of your shoes so easily Mags.

Anyway, that bullshit you posted has nothing do with the impeachment resolution vote whatsoever.

I read the resolution document regarding how to continue the congressional impeachment inquiry procedurally.  There's certainly nothing in it telling Congresspersons how to vote (on any issue) or threatening their DNC backing/funding if they don't vote in favor of impeachment.

Here's the resolution (just scroll down a little to get to the text):  https://www.scribd.com/document/43258719...from_embed

I would never expect that to be in writing anyways. We shall see as this new kind of attack plays out. I'm not so sure that everyone is in the boat though. I will try to get more info when i get on a computer that's not having a breakdown.

(10-30-2019, 04:14 PM)Maggot Wrote: I would never expect that to be in writing anyways. We shall see as this new kind of attack plays out. I'm not so sure that everyone is in the boat though. I will try to get more info when i get on a computer that's not having a breakdown.

Of course it wouldn't be in writing because it makes zero political or common sense, unless you're willing to believe that Pelosi is secretly a Republican operative (which also wouldn't be in writing because that's nonsense too).

But, if you find some credible source for the claim you posted, I'll give it a read Mags.

As far as all Dems not being in the impeachment boat, that is realistic.

I'm not finding anything kid. They need 217 I think on Halloween so we shall see who is in the boat.

(10-30-2019, 07:57 PM)Maggot Wrote: I'm not finding anything kid. They need 217 I think on Halloween so we shall see who is in the boat.

The vote tomorrow is simply on the resolution regarding how to move forward with the House impeachment inquiry (including opening hearings to the public), not on impeachment itself.

Congresspersons who are on the boat in favor of the resolution tomorrow may not be on the boat in favor of impeachment once all the testimony is finished and the facts are accumulated/presented though.   

Anyway, I don't think it will hurt any Democratic Representatives in swing districts to vote in favor of full public transparency in continuing the already-established impeachment inquiry process (especially considering the corroborating testimony from the witnesses called over the last few days).

But, with Trump coming out against the resolution, the Democratic Representatives in districts where Trump had strong wins in 2016 might vote against it.   I doubt there are enough of them to prevent a simple majority 'yes' vote on the resolution though, even if all the Republican Reps vote 'no'.

We'll know soon enough.

I know MSNBC is considered as bad as Fox News in terms of bias but I think this Maddow segment has enough "real" news clips that some of you members will find this credible.

I'm ashamed to admit I don't follow international news as closely as I do national so the story of Russian aggression from last year didn't really register.  But the facts are all here, she's providing commentary but she's not spinning stories out of thin air.  It's a worthwhile watch.

I see the House resolution on the process for moving forward with the impeachment inquiry passed overwhelmingly; 232 'yes' votes to 196 'no' votes.  A few Democrat Reps from Trump-supporting districts voted 'no' or didn't vote at all.

Today's vote was the first meaningful one since the investigation regarding President Trump's alleged withholding of military aid to Ukraine unless the country promised to investigate his political foe (Joe Biden) began last month.

While there is no Constitutional requirement calling for the hearings to be made public, nor calling for a vote on how to conduct impeachment inquiries, some Republican politicians had been lashing out at the 'process'. Their beef was that there wasn't enough transparency in the process and that testimony shouldn't be taken behind closed doors.  

Be careful what you wish for.  Despite airing their beefs about lack of transparency just last week, today they all voted against the  resolution which makes the hearings public and televised.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi waited to take the non-required vote until public support for the inquiry surged after witnesses under oath corroborated each other's testimony that President Trump did, in fact, tie moving forward with military aid to Ukraine with garnering its President's commitment to investigate Biden.  

The same type of vote was taken during the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries as well.

Anyway, whether you love or hate her, Pelosi's a great tactician, in my opinion.  She was patient, smart and strategic.

And, whether you love or hate him, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is also one savvy political strategist.  I'm sure he has some tricks up his sleeves to try to pour water all over Pelosi's House, in full view of the public audience.

In any case, it was flat out wrong to threaten halting US military aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine's President agreed to do something that personally benefited the US President (quid pro quo, with Trump using nutjob Rudy Giuliani as a conduit no less)..........if that's actually what went down.  

Is it an impeachable offense, if proven?  We'll see.

I'm actually very happy the Dems have taken this to a higher level. This is really great that they would do this. it just shows that there is some good left in their cold shriveled hearts. Thank you Democrats you have done well. 

I think the televised impeachment inquiry hearings will likely be a hyper-partisan shitshow..........just like with the final Benghazi hearing, the Kavanaugh confirmation, the Michael Cohen testimony, etc.

Elected representatives from both parties (with a few exceptions) are much more focused on showing off and either coddling or eviscerating witnesses to fit their own narratives than they are with getting to the truth objectively, in my opinion. 

Anyway, I don't have an expectation that the upcoming televised hearings will play out like the more fact-finding and professional style of the Nixon impeachment hearings, but it would be a very welcome surprise if they do.

I view it as another smear campaign to try to get Americans to go against Trump. The Dems do not have very strong candidates, the economy is doing good, many polls show Trump with higher approval ratings. I am glad that this the final nail has been driven into the coffin. Now that the back side of the Russian collusion or the beginning of it is coming to light it may even eclipse this. We shall see as the ...............investigation continues. 

I don't view it the same way Mags, in that I believe there is merit in investigating the possible quid pro quo violation of the emoluments clause, especially after some of the most recent testimony.

I'll wait to see what evidence comes out during the hearings before drawing any conclusions though.  Both parties will have a chance to question witnesses and we'll have the opportunity to look past the grandstanding and judge the content and veracity for ourselves.

In terms of smear campaigns, I completely expect to see all kinds of them undertaken by President Trump against the inquiry itself and the Dems spearheading it, by Republicans against witnesses whose statements don't fit their agenda, by Democrats against witnesses whose statements don't fit their agenda, by each party against the other, and so on.

We shall see the "merit" of how Trump tried to destroy America with high crimes and misdemeanors  against the American people come election day.

He's considering reading a transcript of the phone call in a fireside chat setting. Ahahahahahaha! Dooooooo iiiiitttttt.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say Mags, but it sounds like dramatic license.

Whether President Trump "tried to destroy America" is not the subject of the inquiry.

It's an inquiry into whether he  violated the Constitution by threatening to hold up foreign aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine officials agreed to do him a favor which would benefit him personally/politically.

In any case, the Congress will vote on whether there's evidence that he did so and whether he should be impeached for it, not the American people.

The House might vote to impeach him, but, sure, he could still get re-elected if the Senate votes against impeachment since the Senate makes the final call.

That's what happened with Bill Clinton, and the impeachment by the House is thought by many political scholars to have helped Clinton win again, in that it rallied his base around him and generated more voter enthusiasm.  That history is one of the reasons Pelosi held off supporting an official impeachment inquiry for so long.

Anyhow, we'll see how this one plays out.  It's supposed to come to a head by Thanksgiving, but that might just be wishful thinking.

It's going to mean a lot to me to see republicans say with their no vote that the things the prez has been accused of and the evidence put forward regarding it is meaningless to them. I look forward to their final say and the political advertising that results from it. Oh hell yeah. The act of pinning them down is going to be meaningful.

I feel the same way with Reps going back to their home states with a yes vote. I would not consider what trump did to anything different than what any other president has done. Most people can see it. Some do not want to and others put their own words to it.

I don't recall a president before now trying to shakedown another country.

truman,kennedy, nixon,bush,clinton obama............all of them have.

I think you misunderstand. There is a tremendous difference between doing something that benefits America as compared to doing something that benefits one's self. One's legal and acceptable and one is the polar opposite.