Pelosi Announces Impeachment?

[Orange]

1 minute ago, Scscsc89 said:

 

I understand what you meant and I agree that the outcome was probably baked in.   But the point is that if people like you didn't stand up for witnesses because IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO -- or don't plan to hold the GOP senate accountable -- then we'll get more of the same.   If they had been forced to include witnesses would that have changed things?  Perhaps not, but it would have increased the pressure on them.    

I really like to think that John Bolton testifying before the senate might strike at the heart of a few people there who are hawksih, nat'l security types, and don't like our country being sold down the river (since Ukraine is a firewall against a rising Russian threat).

[Scscsc89]

Just now, Orange said:

What more could they possibly need,

Witnesses and congressional subpoenas are the norm but hey, what can you do, it's a crazy mixed-up world.

[CRBuff]

4 minutes ago, Scscsc89 said:

 

I understand what you meant and I agree that the outcome was probably baked in.   But the point is that if people like you didn't stand up for witnesses because IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO -- or don't plan to hold the GOP senate accountable -- then we'll get more of the same.   If they had been forced to include witnesses would that have changed things?  Perhaps not, but it would have increased the pressure on them.    

Your assumption is that I will and do not hold them accountable sc.  you just assume I vote conservative I guess?

[Orange]

Just now, CRBuff said:

Your assumption is that I will and do not hold them accountable sc.  you just assume I vote conservative I guess?

All we have to go on is your rhetoric, which is decidedly republican-apologetic.

[CRBuff]

7 minutes ago, Orange said:

I can't tell what your own editorial stance is on this right here.  You're saying they needed more, and you're almost implying that you agree.  Otherwise, why make the statement?

What more could they possibly need, apart from a president selling out our national security for the sake of being elected?

And we're back to you making this out to be a 50/50 left/right situation, when it is not.

I meant that the republican senate was never going to vote to impeach without the literal smoking gun, and we didn’t have that.  

And 60/40, 70/30, whatever.  Doesn’t change the basic thought.

[Scscsc89]

3 minutes ago, CRBuff said:

Your assumption is that I will and do not hold them accountable sc.  you just assume I vote conservative I guess?

 

No -- I believe that (people like you) don't vote. 

And (people like you) sure as hell don't support moderate candidates either financially or with their time.

Also I believe that (people like you) don't call or write their congresspeople or party leadership.

 

Now, maybe you do all three of those things but then you'd be the unicorn.

[CRBuff]

2 minutes ago, Orange said:

All we have to go on is your rhetoric, which is decidedly republican-apologetic.

I’m often critical and have literally said that I will not vote form trump and don’t agree with the republicans actions.  So there’s that.

[Scscsc89]

2 minutes ago, CRBuff said:

I meant that the republican senate was never going to vote to impeach without the literal smoking gun, and we didn’t have that. 

 

We also didn't have the witnesses OR the evidence requirements of a trial that would produce a smoking gun.

So that must mean no smoking gun potentially existed?

[CRBuff]

2 minutes ago, Scscsc89 said:

 

No -- I believe that (people like you) don't vote. 

And (people like you) sure as hell don't support moderate candidates either financially or with their time.

Also I believe that (people like you) don't call or write their congresspeople or party leadership.

 

Now, maybe you do all three of those things but then you'd be the unicorn.

I do two of three.....not bad for a “person like you”.

[Orange]

5 minutes ago, Scscsc89 said:

Witnesses and congressional subpoenas are the norm but hey, what can you do, it's a crazy mixed-up world.

Well for the ones who weren't convinced by the evidence, sure.  But from what I heard, most Republicans knew he was guilty, but simply didn't believe it was worth booting him from office.

That's what I don't get.  How is bribing a foreign leader for your own gain NOT worth being booted from office??

[Orange]

3 minutes ago, CRBuff said:

I meant that the republican senate was never going to vote to impeach without the literal smoking gun, and we didn’t have that.  

And 60/40, 70/30, whatever.  Doesn’t change the basic thought.

Yes, it fucking does.

Jesus.

[CRBuff]

1 minute ago, Scscsc89 said:

 

We also didn't have the witnesses OR the evidence requirements of a trial that would produce a smoking gun.

So that must mean no smoking gun potentially existed?

Never said that.  Had to come from the house.  

[Scscsc89]

Now we are back to not understanding the difference between an investigation and a trial.

Which, coincidentally, is a GOP talking point (and yes, I know you're not a member of the GOP)

[Orange]

Just now, CRBuff said:

Never said that.  Had to come from the house.  

Again, these Senators COMPLETELY BELIEVE TRUMP DID WHAT THE HOUSE ALLEGED.  But they don't want to kick him from office.

Do you understand that? Do you realize what a dramatic difference that makes?  

[CRBuff]

1 minute ago, Scscsc89 said:

Now we are back to not understanding the difference between an investigation and a trial.

Which, coincidentally is a GOP talking point (and yes, I know you're not a member of the GOP)

No we are not.  But the political reality was that it had to come out prior to this getting to the senate.

[Orange]

Just now, CRBuff said:

No we are not.  But the political reality was that it had to come out prior to this getting to the senate.

Only because Moscow Mitch created that arbitrary rule that would most definitely not apply under a Democratic administration.

[Scscsc89]

3 minutes ago, Orange said:

But from what I heard, most Republicans knew he was guilty, but simply didn't believe it was worth booting him from office.

 

And I'd be okay with this if they had witnesses/evidence because its mostly why Bill Clinton got off (excuse the pun).

The fact they knew they couldn't risk the blowback makes it quite something different.

[Scscsc89]

4 minutes ago, CRBuff said:

But the political reality was that it had to come out prior to this getting to the senate.

 

That political reality is 100% based on people like you & Jalapeno that they knew would say, "Oh I really supported witnesses, but oh well, that's politics."

[Mano]

6 minutes ago, CRBuff said:

I meant that the republican senate was never going to vote to impeach without the literal smoking gun, and we didn’t have that.  

And 60/40, 70/30, whatever.  Doesn’t change the basic thought.

WTF with this smoking gun bs? There were several republicans who literally stated that they didn't need witnesses because they conceded that Trump used his power to try to coerce the Ukraine to announce investigations into Biden, but did not convict because they thought that wasn't worthy of impeachment. The transcript was a smoking gun. The witnesses were a smoking gun. Witnesses that were not allowed were further smoking guns. The GOP senators ( outside of Romney ) give no fucks about that.

[CRBuff]

2 minutes ago, Orange said:

Only because Moscow Mitch created that arbitrary rule that would most definitely not apply under a Democratic administration.

I agree.  

Had the smoking gun come out it would have made it politically untenable for republicans to ignore it.  It didn’t happen.  Or the republicans are so insulated it doesn’t matter.  Or a little of both.