Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Sparko]

Mitch McConnell's speech about the impeachment. 30 min, but worth it.

[Cow Poke]

No, it would not. The Court would almost certainly have granted certiorari, as they did in the Nixon inquiry.

Quit making excuses for your failing coup attempt. We told you for months that this would happen when it reached the Senate, you said repeatedly that it didn't matter, and here we are. Deal with it.

Jim is in absolute total disbelief and will grasp at any possible explanation as to why his dear leaders failed him.

[Teallaura]

Meanwhile, Republicans have set another fundraising record:

$20.6 million in November!

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...achment-fight/

Plus the Dems have spent three months creating a wonderful selection of soundbites and photo ops - for Trump ads and memes

[Teallaura]

And that's surprising to you, they are the party of the wealthy after all.

Riiight... Bill Gates is such an ultra conservative...

The current fundraising levels are off the scale - including the obscenely high totals raised by Obama (another ultra conservative, yes, we know).

Take a look at the current financial make up of the Democrats both in office and running for president - multimillionaires, yes; paupers, no.

[Teallaura]

The supposed vulnerable democrats overwhelmingly voted to impeach. Democrats for the most part are principled!

Blackmail is principled, huh?

[Mountain Man]

It looks like the democrats did well here. Instead of going to court to compel the witnesses, they just hit Trump with an obstruction of congress which is a crime according to s 1505

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...edition=prelim

Did you even bother to read 1505? It specifically refers to the Antitrust Civil Process Act which has nothing to do with an impeachment inquiry.

[Cow Poke]

Blackmail is principled, huh?

We really need to create a "JimL's Dictionary", cause these words obviously are way different to him than to the rest of the free world.

[Mountain Man]

Jim is in absolute total disbelief and will grasp at any possible explanation as to why his dear leaders failed him.

But they didn't fail him. They did exactly what they promised. Why isn't he savoring the taste of victory?

[Cow Poke]

Did you even bother to read 1505? It specifically refers to the Antitrust Civil Process Act which has nothing to do with an impeachment inquiry.

...and includes the words " with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act " and " the due and proper administration of the law ".

[Teallaura]

I suppose that, since Mitch controls what is brought to the floor, the Senate could choose to sit on this indefinitely* as well.

*although I suspect either chamber would run into the limit imposed by the Congress being sworn in after next year's election.

No, both houses have rules that deal with tabled matters - it's not possible to table something indefinitely, but it can be allowed to die of inaction.

I don't see that happening here.

[Cow Poke]

But they didn't fail him. They did exactly what they promised. Why isn't he savoring the taste of victory?

Trump is still in power - in that sense, his dear leaders failed him. They put on a sham impeachment which they're too embarrassed to turn over to the Senate.

[Sparko]

Riiight... Bill Gates is such an ultra conservative...

The current fundraising levels are off the scale - including the obscenely high totals raised by Obama (another ultra conservative, yes, we know).

Take a look at the current financial make up of the Democrats both in office and running for president - multimillionaires, yes; paupers, no.

Sure they are all obscenely rich, but they self-identify as paupers.

[Teallaura]

It looks like the democrats did well here. Instead of going to court to compel the witnesses, they just hit Trump with an obstruction of congress which is a crime according to s 1505

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...edition=prelim

No, it's not. The House never even asked about intent on the Ukraine matter - refusing to comply with a questionable demand doesn't form either intent or corruption.

I know you read this thing.

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Source

*emphasis mine

Also, we are pretty big on 'innocent until proven guilty' here. It ain't obstruction until proven - until then, it's an allegation.


And it's STILL not 'obstruction of Congress'. That isn't an actual crime.

[Mountain Man]

I'm curious, does the right to a speedy trial come into play here?

[Teallaura]

Did you even bother to read 1505? It specifically refers to the Antitrust Civil Process Act which has nothing to do with an impeachment inquiry.

Er, that wouldn't necessarily matter. And it IS possible to obstruct justice by obstructing a Congressional committee's LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE activities.

But failing to comply with cause and without corrupt intent? Nah, not even close.