Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[rogue06]

A national security risk how and why? I watched most of the hearings, please explain...

IIRC, there was a Democrat Congressperson who thought Trump needed to be impeached because he was making his own foreign policy.

[Sparko]

Whether the House should have included perjury is a matter of debate -- not everything a President does that is corrupt or even illegal needs to be included in articles of impeachment. But Trump's alleged perjury to the Special Counsel fits into the articles of impeachment passed by the House, in any event.

Like Trump's decades of tax cheating, just because it's not mentioned in one particular place doesn't mean it didn't happen.

--Sam

After straining gnats for months trying to find anything they could charge him with, you think they had "perjury" and just didn't bother to use it?

[seer]

If you read the report related to the articles of impeachment, witness tampering is included in the obstruction of Congress article.

Who are you talking about? If you are speaking of Trump which witnesses did he tamper with?

[Sparko]

The article's been out for well over a year and got dozens of response articles in other papers. If you've used up your free NYT articles for the month, it shouldn't be hard to find a summary article on CNN, WaPo, or elsewhere.

Pretty crazy that people round here who gab about politics all day every day are ignorant of it, tho.

--Sam

You've been told before about arguing via weblink, Sam. If you insist on doing it, at least link to something not behind a paywall. You need to include some quotes from the article to support your assertions.

[rogue06]

Who are you talking about? If you are speaking of Trump which witnesses did he tamper with?

Likely the former disgruntled diplomat who whined about how great a job she was doing, since Trump tweeted about her while she was bellyaching "testifying."

Of course she would not have known about the Tweet, which means it couldn't have possibly influenced her "testimony," if Schiff hadn't stopped the proceedings so he could read it to her.

[rogue06]

So let me get this straight, the Democrats are bypassing real crimes to charge Trump with for made up crimes to charge Trump with. I sure hope that made more sense in your head than saying it out loud.

[rogue06]

After straining gnats for months trying to find anything they could charge him with, you think they had "perjury" and just didn't bother to use it?

The scary thing is that this makes perfect sense to the TDS crowd.

[RumTumTugger]

Yes, "credible:

1. capable of being believed; believable".

2. a credible statement. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/credible

1. Third or fourth hand hearsay evidence is capable of being believed?

2. An opinion is a Credible Statement, worthy of beleif or confidence: Trustworthy: A credible Witness?



I don't know how it is in Australia with your court systems but here in America the courts do do not accept hearsay evidence as credible just on the say so of the prosecution. And no Court would accept the case that only has only hearsay evidence and opinion.

[Sam]

You've been told before about arguing via weblink, Sam. If you insist on doing it, at least link to something not behind a paywall. You need to include some quotes from the article to support your assertions.

It's not an argument via weblink and it's common enough practice here that I'm not going bother with making a citation if it's not a specific feature of a particular argument.

Not interested in folks trying to enforce vague interpretations of the rules only sometimes and only for some posters.

--Sam

[Sparko]

It's not an argument via weblink and it's common enough practice here that I'm not going bother with making a citation if it's not a specific feature of a particular argument.

Not interested in folks trying to enforce vague interpretations of the rules only sometimes and only for some posters.

--Sam

Just use some common courtesy Sam. And do yourself a favor: When you link to paywalled articles, people can't read your source. It has the effect of them ignoring your point, since you didn't even bother quoting any of it. They merely take it as your opinion and nothing else.

[RumTumTugger]

Clinto was impeached for lying to Congress, dopey!

No Jim Clinton was charged with Perjury. Which is the crime he lied under oath to a grand jury while he was President and was immediately disbarred after he was caught. he was also charged with tampering with a witness which is not obstruction of congress but obstruction of Justice sorry JimL in neither of these cases was he covered by Exectutive Privilege. waht were you 2 years old when Clinton was impeached? that would be the only reason you don't know what happened

[lilpixieofterror]

It's not an argument via weblink and it's common enough practice here that I'm not going bother with making a citation if it's not a specific feature of a particular argument.

Not interested in folks trying to enforce vague interpretations of the rules only sometimes and only for some posters.

--Sam

[Sam]

Just use some common courtesy Sam. And do yourself a favor: When you link to paywalled articles, people can't read your source. It has the effect of them ignoring your point, since you didn't even bother quoting any of it. They merely take it as your opinion and nothing else.

Well, that would be foolish.

It's an extensive article and there's absolutely no way to summarize it in a way that won't be taken as declarative instead of investigative to folks here who have no interest in determining that Trump is actually guilty of tax fraud. It's not the type of article that can be usefully cited without excessive violation of TWeb's (loosely enforced) fair use guidelines.

I just pasted the page into one of my alternative Chrome user profiles and had no problem bringing up the entire article. If folks actually want to read it, they could manage with ease.

If not, well, I don't think it's something that's gonna turn hearts and minds, given what we've been dealing with.

--Sam

[Sam]

If Bernie Madoff was running a ponzi scheme, how did he go for decades without being charged?

If Jerry Epstein was running a human trafficking outfit of underage girls, how did he go for decades without being charged?

If Trump's taxes are on the up and up, why is there reportedly a whistleblower complaint about improper interference in the IRS audit process of his returns?

I'd say there's something smart and necessary in Warren making her platform prioritized around anti-corruption among the rich and well-to-do.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

Not. Even. Close.

He was impeached for committing perjury in court.

In the future please at least make some attempt to fail better.

Don't ya love it when he calls you 'dopey' while saying something incredibly dopey?