|
|
That impeachment thing....
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 13:31:33
So if a condition of the aid was to investigate and root out corruption, and Biden was involved in a shady arrangement with a company that was known to be corrupt, then why shouldn’t an investigation into Biden’s connection with said company be a condition of receiving the aid? It all follows logically.
Except that its illegal. The money was approved by Congress, by law, it had to be paid out.
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 13:32:28
Zoe Loefgran(?) should answer more questions, much better speaker than Garcia.
 Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2020-01-29 13:37:56
Literally every "well to do" human on earth is on or has kids in positions where they get money for doing nothing. Hunter biden is no different. It's literally meaningless in context.
There are right now absolutely hundreds of thousands of people like him getting paid exorbitant amounts of money all over the world.
Sure, but not all of them are involved with corrupt foreign businesses that are required to be investigated as a condition of foreign aid. It’s not like Biden got his son a high-paying job at Ford. There’s a reason why some U.S. politicians are connecting family members with Ukraine, and it’s because the Ukraine is corrupt.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2020-01-29 13:45:26
So if a condition of the aid was to investigate and root out corruption, and Biden was involved in a shady arrangement with a company that was known to be corrupt, then why shouldn’t an investigation into Biden’s connection with said company be a condition of receiving the aid? It all follows logically.
Except that its illegal. The money was approved by Congress, by law, it had to be paid out.
Wrong. We discussed this a while back. Each foreign aid deal has a set of conditions, with a variety of rules for who is responsible for overseeing that the conditions are met. If Congress had specified that the aid was unconditional and not subject to Executive oversight, then yes it would be illegal to withhold it. More often than not, the President has varying degrees of flexibility.
You cannot argue that withholding the aid was illegal without first producing the agreement. If you want to drop that on us, then we can parse it out.
[+]
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 13:46:29
I wish they said the Senator's names, instead of just the Senator from such and such state. While its impressive they can be identified by sight, I don't know all their names.
[+]
 Asura.Eiryl
By Asura.Eiryl 2020-01-29 14:00:06
Holy ***, new drinking game
Everytime they say Precedent take a shot. Dangerous precedent two shots.
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 14:03:30
The defense team is certainly trying to run precedent into the ground, ignoring the fact that the Clinton trial had witness testimony, also ignoring that precedent is not law.
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 14:08:48
I dont like these questions that deal in hypotheticals and precedent, they always produce the same answers and dont bring any actual information to light.
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 14:15:35
Yeah, Zoe Lofgren, really good answers. I notice Nadler hasn't answered a single question, and Garcia has not returned to the podium either.
Valefor.Endoq
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6906
By Valefor.Endoq 2020-01-29 14:18:45
Holy ***, new drinking game
Everytime they say Precedent take a shot. Dangerous precedent two shots. I like this idea, but it should be done with prune juice
[+]
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 14:22:20
Damnit I jinxed it, here comes Nadler.
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 14:23:13
Good lord, Nadler talks way too fast, take a breath dude.
[+]
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 14:33:09
Wow that was a long question.
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 14:39:56
Schiff is a way better public speaker than I thought. That last answer was really good.
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 14:42:54
Im betting that so far the biggest moment that people will talk about is Dershowitz' ridiculous narrative. Why is this guy even on the defense team.
Asura.Eiryl
By Asura.Eiryl 2020-01-29 14:59:28
Anything that distracts from the topic at hand is a win.
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 15:09:38
They come back from break to ask a completely pointless question that just lets the defense bash Obama.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 655
By Shiva.Zerowone 2020-01-29 15:26:00
Im betting that so far the biggest moment that people will talk about is Dershowitz' ridiculous narrative. Why is this guy even on the defense team.
The narrative that validated the impeachment articles? Sans his caveat that because the president believes continuing to be president is what’s best for the country therefore Chewbacca.
Was amazing.
In other news Parnas showed up Capitol Hill demanding to be let in to give testimony. Won’t be surprised if he’s getting Barr-Epsteined in the next couple of days.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-lev-parnas-capitol-hill-testify-witness-a9308546.html
[+]
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 15:28:21
I think even the defense knows that was really bad for them, hence Dershowitz has not been seen again.
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 15:29:39
Going back to this incredibly pointless lethal aid question...
Odin.Slore
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1350
By Odin.Slore 2020-01-29 16:03:54
Also the witnesses were allowed in Clinton impeachment is a ***argument. Yes there were witnesses but the ONLY witnesses were those that had already testified in prior dispositions. There was no new witnesses or new evidence allowed in the Senate.
Know the past before you claim otherwise.
Quote: They note that this trial differs from Clinton’s because the witnesses who appeared in 1999 had already testified in prior depositions, unlike witnesses they’d like to call this time around who resisted appearing in front of the House.
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 16:06:06
And now we are trying to cite John Soloman and the New Yorker, ok then.
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 16:06:58
Also the witnesses were allowed in Clinton impeachment is a ***argument. Yes there were witnesses but the ONLY witnesses were those that had already testified in prior dispositions. There was no new witnesses or new evidence allowed in the Senate.
Know the past before you claim otherwise.
Quote: They note that this trial differs from Clinton’s because the witnesses who appeared in 1999 had already testified in prior depositions, unlike witnesses they’d like to call this time around who resisted appearing in front of the House.
There were witnesses in the Clinton trial. Thats all that matters. There are no "buts."
Odin.Slore
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1350
By Odin.Slore 2020-01-29 16:14:08
Also the witnesses were allowed in Clinton impeachment is a ***argument. Yes there were witnesses but the ONLY witnesses were those that had already testified in prior dispositions. There was no new witnesses or new evidence allowed in the Senate.
Know the past before you claim otherwise.
Quote: They note that this trial differs from Clinton’s because the witnesses who appeared in 1999 had already testified in prior depositions, unlike witnesses they’d like to call this time around who resisted appearing in front of the House.
There were witnesses in the Clinton trial. Thats all that matters. There are no "buts."
Good attempt to spin that Vic. Like I said there was no new witnesses or no new evidence presented...none..zip..nadda...
If the senate becomes the investigative body in impeachment trials then the house would never do it's job, whether democrat or republican the house would just constantly send over some *** articles of impeachment if they did a half *** job and then expect the senate to investigate as well. You know 2 shots in hope for 1 kill. You cannot set a precedence like that or each party will do it and you damn well know it. Just like now, I will bet if republicans take house and senate in the future you know damn well they will use this same strategy if there is a dem president.
tl/dr: this is dangerous and will be used in future.
Asura.Eiryl
By Asura.Eiryl 2020-01-29 16:15:06
two shots for slore, he didn't say precedent but he literally did
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2020-01-29 16:28:06
Yeah, Vic and Eiryl have a point. If precedent mattered, Trump wouldn’t have been impeached without an actual crime listed in the articles.
By fonewear 2020-01-29 16:43:18
Also the witnesses were allowed in Clinton impeachment is a ***argument. Yes there were witnesses but the ONLY witnesses were those that had already testified in prior dispositions. There was no new witnesses or new evidence allowed in the Senate.
Know the past before you claim otherwise.
Quote: They note that this trial differs from Clinton’s because the witnesses who appeared in 1999 had already testified in prior depositions, unlike witnesses they’d like to call this time around who resisted appearing in front of the House.
There were witnesses in the Clinton trial. Thats all that matters. There are no "buts."
If it's good enough for Slick Willie it's good enough for Trump.
I didn't have sex with that woman/I didn't think a phone call was an impeachable offense.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2020-01-29 16:49:25
It’s the President Precedent™!
By Viciouss 2020-01-29 17:00:54
tl/dr: this is dangerous and will be used in future.
Oh well.
All of it.
Hearings, committees, Ukraine, conspiracy theories, Ukrainians, Rudy, Devin, Schiff, Nancy, the whole 9 yards.
I would respectfully ask that you hit preview before you submit, take a few slow deep breaths, reread, consider edits.
|
|
