• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Impeachment |OT|

The Chosen One

The Chosen One

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,888
Yeah the House Managers need to shorten their answers. Or rather once they've answered the question, they don't have to fill up every second of their time.Also keep Garcia away from answering questions, she's way too stilted.

Schiff did well (though went too long in his first answer) but the defense has definitely done solid for their arguments.

But the Dems need to ask opposing council questions to at least catch them off guard.
 
julian

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,881
Casa said:
In what way? Like Jeffries said, this idea of absolute immunity was laughed out of court and they never raised executive privellage.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The House said they cited no legal precedence and then the defense countered that listing off cases they cited. It's all nonsense, but it sounds good and like the House was misleading.
 
DanGo

DanGo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,767
LOL, Dershowitz arguing that Congress wouldn't be upset if another president withheld congressionally-mandated money for Israel or Palestine.
 
RoninZ

RoninZ

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,757
The quid pro quo for personal interests to national interests are 2 different things. That is insanity
 
Doran

Doran

Member
Jun 9, 2018
1,852
The Chosen One said:
Yeah the House Managers need to shorten their answers. Or rather once they've answered the question, they don't have to fill up every second of their time.Also keep Garcia away from answering questions, she's way too stilted.

Schiff did well (though went too long in his first answer) but the defense has definitely done solid for their arguments.

But the Dems need to ask opposing council questions to at least catch them off guard.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I agree completely. Purely for my sake though, I have been getting lost in some of their answers.
 

Deleted member 24052

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
13,470
NOW the argument is that Trump's reelection is in the nation's best interest, so that makes the quid pro quo okay.

OH BOY, THAT'S SOME STRETCHIN' YOU'RE DOIN' THERE OL' PAL.
 
nny

nny

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,270
lol "If I'm not elected that is not in the country's interest"

What's next? "I'm so great I'll cancel elections all together"
 
Doran

Doran

Member
Jun 9, 2018
1,852
I wish they would questions each other more instead of playing this game of one upsmanship using their own senators.
 
rjinaz

rjinaz

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
28,483
Phoenix
I mean really the whole "If Obama had done it" argument is so self-evident of what Republicans would have done, the hypocrisy almost hurts.
 
Posty McPostface

Posty McPostface

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,141
If quid pro quo's are always acceptable in foreign policy and subjective motive doesn't matter, then what was Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden for?
 
Dahbomb

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,671
infamous5445 said:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
giphy.gif
 
Version 3.0

Version 3.0

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,345
Dali said:
Good thing all the evidence shows that his motive for withholding the funds was to get the Ukrainian president to announce an investigation into the Bidens. That he says after the fact when he realized he was in trouble he withheld funds because he was concerned about corruption in Ukraine seems irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Trump definitely was concerned about corruption in Ukraine. He thinks there's not enough of it.
 
julian

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,881
"Can you believe they had a timetable?! Now let's vote down witnesses and get this done before the state of the union"
 
Enduin

Enduin

You look 40
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,543
New York
Dems should really ask the WH Counsel and pressure them again and again on why they wont allow witnesses since they view the President as innocent and this being a policy dispute so wouldn't those witnesses exonerate him further and what harm is there to get the full picture. If the President is so innocent and this is such a partisan attack why not expose that fully for what it is.
 
Sheepinator

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,167
Atlagev said:
Can someone explain something to me? Why is the Senate able to call Bolton (if they wanted to), but the House Intelligence Committee wasn't able to? Can the House Inteligence Comitee call Bolton to testify even after this is all over?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
House asked him. He said he wouldn't without a subpoena, and they knew that the AG Barr would let Bolton and other WH people ignore subpoenas, and the courts process would take months, probably just to have him say "executive privilege" at the end of it all. He seems to be more willing now, considering he's writing about it in his book.

I assume the House could ask him again, but that would give the appearance of re-litigating this "trial", which I doubt the Dems would do especially in an election year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.