POLL: Why is this "impeachment hearing" REALLY happening?

**JimZipCode** · 11-21-2019, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by darb72

There is almost no chance of the Senate voting to remove Trump from office

Agreed. Practically zero.

Maybe it creeps up if the Senate adopts the same secret vote process they did for Clinton. I don't think any Dem expects it. Maybe some passionate college student somewhere.

Originally Posted by darb72

.... so this dog and pony show is just to get the liberals fired up.

No.

I was deathly afraid that Ol' Nance would let the session of Congress go by without impeaching, out of a coldly pragmatic view of what is most likely to help Dems win in 2020. I wrote something to that effect here, six months ago:

https://forum.russellstreetreport.co...ion-to-impeach

I think it is more important for the health of the Republic, to NOT let this kind of conduct go un-impeached. If the Republicans want to keep this crook in office, let them put their official stamp on it. The fact is that it would be precendent-setting, not to impeach. Utter cowardice. In my view, Dems must impeach; even if they knew for a fact that it would cost them dearly in this next election. Either there are standards of conduct that even the president must be held to; or there are not.

**CarrollCoRaven** · 11-21-2019, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by darb72

It's just playing to their base. There is almost no chance of the Senate voting to remove Trump from office, so this dog and pony show is just to get the liberals fired up.

Oh, I realize that, but the Turtle is on record saying he will hold a trial in the Senate if the House impeaches. Would the Republican's have "total" control over the hearing like the Democrats had for these current hearings.

**Vlad the lad** · 11-21-2019, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by JimZipCode

Agreed. Practically zero.

Maybe it creeps up if the Senate adopts the same secret vote process they did for Clinton. I don't think any Dem expects it. Maybe some passionate college student somewhere.

No.

I was deathly afraid that Ol' Nance would let the session of Congress go by without impeaching, out of a coldly pragmatic view of what is most likely to help Dems win in 2020. I wrote something to that effect here, six months ago:

https://forum.russellstreetreport.co...ion-to-impeach

I think it is more important for the health of the Republic, to NOT let this kind of conduct go un-impeached. If the Republicans want to keep this crook in office, let them put their official stamp on it. The fact is that it would be precendent-setting, not to impeach. Utter cowardice. In my view, Dems must impeach; even if they knew for a fact that it would cost them dearly in this next election. Either there are standards of conduct that even the president must be held to; or there are not.

So you have him guilty, without any evidence. Awesome

Let me guess, you knew he was guilty the moment he walked down those stairs and announced

**JimZipCode** · 11-21-2019, 10:10 PM

Ah, the good ol' days:

**JimZipCode** · 11-21-2019, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Vlad the lad

So you have him guilty, without any evidence. Awesome

The assertion that there "isn't any evidence" is preposterous, laughable. False on its face. Your promulgation of it makes you a tinfoil-hat lunatic.

Are you perhaps using the word "evidence" to mean, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"? That's the only I can read your statement as having any relationship with the rational world.

**NCRAVEN** · 11-21-2019, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by JimZipCode

The assertion that there "isn't any evidence" is preposterous, laughable. False on its face. Your promulgation of it makes you a tinfoil-hat lunatic.

Are you perhaps using the word "evidence" to mean, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"? That's the only I can read your statement as having any relationship with the rational world.

I’ll just take evidence that would be admissible in a court of law. Got any of that?

**SpaceCityRaven** · 11-21-2019, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

I’ll just take evidence that would be admissible in a court of law. Got any of that?

First hand testimony is admissible and theres been loads of it thus far.

You’re confusing hearsay with first hand testimony me thinks.

**darb72** · 11-21-2019, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by JimZipCode

Agreed. Practically zero.

Maybe it creeps up if the Senate adopts the same secret vote process they did for Clinton. I don't think any Dem expects it. Maybe some passionate college student somewhere.

No.

I was deathly afraid that Ol' Nance would let the session of Congress go by without impeaching, out of a coldly pragmatic view of what is most likely to help Dems win in 2020. I wrote something to that effect here, six months ago:

https://forum.russellstreetreport.co...ion-to-impeach

I think it is more important for the health of the Republic, to NOT let this kind of conduct go un-impeached. If the Republicans want to keep this crook in office, let them put their official stamp on it. The fact is that it would be precendent-setting, not to impeach. Utter cowardice. In my view, Dems must impeach; even if they knew for a fact that it would cost them dearly in this next election. Either there are standards of conduct that even the president must be held to; or there are not.

Again, you have no evidence. None. Literally every witness that has appeared in front of the House has produced nothing but hearsay and presumptions. Sondland even said, under oath, that Trump said he didn't want anything, wanted no quid pro quo.

**darb72** · 11-21-2019, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceCityRaven

First hand testimony is admissible and theres been loads of it thus far.

You’re confusing hearsay with first hand testimony me thinks.

There is no first hand testimony. The original whistle blower was at best third hand and the only witness that has spoken with Trump said there was no discussion of a quid pro quo.

**JimZipCode** · 11-21-2019, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

I’ll just take evidence that would be admissible in a court of law. Got any of that?

You & Darb should stop asking me if I have any; I personally got nothing. Zilch. Not a thing.

ALL of the witness testimony we saw this week would be admissible in a court of law.

and

Stop trying to apply your detailed knowledge of criminal procedure from watching Law & Order. Neither an impeachment hearing, nor a Senate trial, are a court of law. The evidentiary standards we are used to from TV do not apply.

**JimZipCode** · 11-21-2019, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by CarrollCoRaven

Would the Republican's have "total" control over the hearing like the Democrats had for these current hearings.

You mean, in the sense that the Dems would have equal time to question witnesses, as the Repubs have had? I think so.

Or in the sense that the Repubs would have to sign-off on witnesses Dems would want to subpoena, as the Dems did in these hearings? Yeah, they'll probably model their procedures on the Senate trial of Clinton, just as the House modeled their procedures on the impeachment hearing(s) of Clinton.

**SpaceCityRaven** · 11-21-2019, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by darb72

There is no first hand testimony. The original whistle blower was at best third hand and the only witness that has spoken with Trump said there was no discussion of a quid pro quo.

Everyone on the call and those who got directives that Rudy was running the quid pro quo show are most certainly first hand.