• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

[Live] Trump Impeachment Hearings Season 2, Episode 1: Judiciary Hijinks (Judiciary Committee Hearings)

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,223
3,481
1,010
Hey Guys so we got enough funds for Season 2, I hope you are ready for more nonsense. Now they actually have to "explain" and debate on whether there was an actual crime so this will be much more interesting than the other long tedious hearings.

Maybe. Likely not.

Today we will have 4 LEGAL SCHOLARS testify almost all dems. Which means they will likely try to spin the constitution to change meanings of words while the next hearings may have actual scholars of merit who will say there was no crime.


STREAMS

PBS STREAM:

FOX NEWS STREAM:

WASHINGTON POST STREAM:


Well you though these were over didn't you? HAHAHAHAHAHAH no.

Well, now they will have to at least try to back up their claim that he committed a crime of "bribery" and so far it's not going to well, even Eric Swallowswell is starting to lean back on his previous impeachment aggression. This is could actually end with Schiff losing in the House, which would not only devastate his career but the whole Democrat party.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,256
34,056
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Oh so they ran out of evidence and now the austere scholars get to tell us what the non-evidence means.

Snore. This isn't season 2. This is a spinoff. Wake me up when the final articles of impeachment are up for a vote.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,594
834
1,650
These witnesses are shredding every pathetic talking point defending Trump, and you can tell they’re used to lecturing. Republicans are going to get schooled


Oh so they ran out of evidence and now the austere scholars get to tell us what the non-evidence means.

Snore. This isn't season 2. This is a spinoff. Wake me up when the final articles of impeachment are up for a vote.
Still fuckin that “no evidence” turkey huh?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dragonfart28

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,223
3,481
1,010
"He asked if the Ukraine president can do him a favor and the Ukraine president said NO, we had already investigate this and the claim is baseless"

Uh no, that's not what happened or how anything went down, this lady just got away with lying on TV about Bullshit, what kind of hearing is this?
 
Last edited:

Bladed Thesis

Member
Jun 7, 2019
95
119
245
Why is there a self-declared "scholar of democracy" who can't answer the question except as a "citizen of democracy"?

Why are you there then?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,256
34,056
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Still fuckin that “no evidence” turkey huh?
I went through several threads and watched several days of impeachment hearings.

You're welcome to keep the faith alive, I won't stop you. None of this matters unless it makes it into the final articles of impeachment, you realize that, right? The time for media bluster and "bombshells" is over. Democrats can either officially draft an impeachment or they can back out like cowards.

I'm not interested in the Naruto filler episodes.
 
Last edited:

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,594
834
1,650
Oh so they ran out of evidence and now the austere scholars get to tell us what the non-evidence means.

Snore. This isn't season 2. This is a spinoff. Wake me up when the final articles of impeachment are up for a vote.
I went through several threads and watched several days of impeachment hearings.

You're welcome to keep the faith alive, I won't stop you. None of this matters unless it makes it into the final articles of impeachment, you realize that, right? The time for media bluster and "bombshells" is over. Democrats can either officially draft an impeachment or they can back out like cowards.

I'm not interested in the Naruto filler episodes.
It’s important to understand why a) why the previous witnesses’ testimonies matter and are actually strong evidence of the misconduct and b) why that misconduct rises to the level of impeachable offenses. So experts are testifying and articulately making the case, but people here are smirking about burying their heads in the sand about it.

Clown world indeed
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,465
2,739
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
This doesn't make the country look good, at all. They're treating everyone like complete idiots by trotting these four out, trying to explain to everyone why Trump needs to be impeached by using one hypothetical situation after another. If the facts aren't enough to make your case and you're cheering on professors talking down to you there's something very wrong with that case.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,256
34,056
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
It’s important to understand why a) why the previous witnesses’ testimonies matter and are actually strong evidence of the misconduct and b) why that misconduct rises to the level of impeachable offenses. So experts are testifying and articulately making the case, but people here are smirking about burying their heads in the sand about it.

Clown world indeed
I agree both of those things are important, but anyone who has kept up with the witness testimonies has a wealth of options to figure out both items without the help of these testimonies.

Propping up these testimonies as necessary, important, or authoritative is partisan, by definition, since three out of four witnesses were called by Democrats and appear to have Democrat leanings:


So-called experts testified at the Moscow trials, too.

Ultimately, I reject your assertion that these witnesses add anything to a discussion that has churned for weeks with many more experts weighing in and offering their opinion. A hand-picked panel of witnesses in a joke impeachment isn't my idea of quality.

You're welcome to continue eating the spoonfed narrative. Just don't get mad at others who have already expanded to other sources of opinion and expertise.
 

dragonfart28

Gab Ambassador
Jun 12, 2009
4,890
583
1,050
Republicans won't change their minds but that just becomes a massive Democrat talking point while this continues to snowball.

You know that we will never hear the end about how the Republican Senate subverted democracy and the white house is complicit in Trump's impeachable conduct.

Pretty sure the hope is that they beat that message into the minds of voters enough to change the tide in 2020.
 
Last edited:

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
7,435
5,694
1,435
It’s important to understand why a) why the previous witnesses’ testimonies matter and are actually strong evidence of the misconduct and b) why that misconduct rises to the level of impeachable offenses. So experts are testifying and articulately making the case, but people here are smirking about burying their heads in the sand about it.

Clown world indeed
So we have 3 people picked by the Democrats and 1 picked by Republicans. Look at the headlines now. Fox has a headline saying the GOP picked guy said this is not impeachable. CNN quotes the Dem picked guy who said this is impeachable. The needle isn’t moving any here.

In the end we’ve heard all the testimony. At this point it just feels like we are watching a bunch of people sitting around pointing fingers at each other instead of working on real issues that help people.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,223
3,481
1,010
I wonder how badly these guys will screw up when the Republicans question them, specifically the guys who will be asking the questions all have extensive constitutional knowledge and can corner them.

I also like how the Democrats are running this hearing on the belief that Trump purposefully withheld money for Biden despite still not having found evidence that it was the case when 5 of their star witnesses contradicted each other and 3 of them said he did NOT use quid pro quo or there wasn't enough info.

I guess impeach now evidence later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A Regular Guy

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,777
621
510
I wonder what the variable is that would alter his original opinion back during the Clinton impeachment. :pie_thinking:


 
Last edited:

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,594
834
1,650
I agree both of those things are important, but anyone who has kept up with the witness testimonies has a wealth of options to figure out both items without the help of these testimonies.

Propping up these testimonies as necessary, important, or authoritative is partisan, by definition, since three out of four witnesses were called by Democrats and appear to have Democrat leanings:


So-called experts testified at the Moscow trials, too.

Ultimately, I reject your assertion that these witnesses add anything to a discussion that has churned for weeks with many more experts weighing in and offering their opinion. A hand-picked panel of witnesses in a joke impeachment isn't my idea of quality.

You're welcome to continue eating the spoonfed narrative. Just don't get mad at others who have already expanded to other sources of opinion and expertise.
I don’t think there’s been anything like the hearing we’re seeing right now. We’ve had witnesses to the events that transpired testify, now we’re having witnesses to explain why these are corrupt acts and why that matters testify. Besides talking heads yelling at each other on TV I don’t think we can just write this off as another partisan exercise. Even the GOP witness wouldn’t say Trump shouldn’t be impeached, he was saying it’s premature to do so now. Oops.
 

dolabla

Member
Oct 9, 2013
4,030
5,122
775
When your whole entire message has been nothing but impeach since the night he got elected, then yeah, I'm not taking this serious. It's almost like they have been out to get him any way they can 🤔................................................. all because they lost an election.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,256
34,056
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
I don’t think there’s been anything like the hearing we’re seeing right now. We’ve had witnesses to the events that transpired testify, now we’re having witnesses to explain why these are corrupt acts and why that matters testify.
Yes, and in the age of the internet we're having more witnesses weigh in and offer opinions. If you are relying on these hearings and headlines as your source of information, you are -- knowingly or not -- being fed a narrative. I don't need unelected officials to explain why these "corrupt acts" matter. The impeachment has gone off the rails when the austere scholars are the Hail Mary pass. I won't be browbeaten for not taking these "experts" seriously. Anyone who has watched these hearings has a right to be skeptical.

Besides talking heads yelling at each other on TV I don’t think we can just write this off as another partisan exercise. Even the GOP witness wouldn’t say Trump shouldn’t be impeached, he was saying it’s premature to do so now. Oops.
The process has been partisan from the beginning:

- closed-door hearings until Dems got tricked into pushing into public hearings
- limitations on which witnesses could be called and what questions could be asked during the hearing
- hand-picked scholars parroting the same talking points after the hearings are over

Even if you agree that Trump should be impeached, it should be obvious by this point that Dems botched their delivery. They are bleeding out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ryujin

dragonfart28

Gab Ambassador
Jun 12, 2009
4,890
583
1,050
This guy isn't wrong about bribery, but we also know that the term was used by the Democrats just to make the optics of the quid pro quo more marketable to the masses.

This was already identified as a point of contention during season 1 and it doesn't need to be one of the articles of impeachment.
 
Last edited:

Eiknarf

Member
Mar 25, 2019
1,097
1,044
425
THIS IS COMPLETELY HILLARIOUS....MORE SAD HOW THEY ARE TRYING TO DRIVE THESE FALSE INCIDENTS AS REALITY

So republicans can’t ask these clowns questions?

It's one sided!!!!
 

dragonfart28

Gab Ambassador
Jun 12, 2009
4,890
583
1,050
This guy's argument against impeachment of Trump is that the entire process is flawed because it doesn't include the judiciary.

It's not a good argument since we could have a government in power that is actively compromising security but remains in power for the whole term because the judiciary took so long to process the investigation.

Part of the impeachment deal is to streamline the process and we do that by acknowledging that a president can be impeached without needing to commit a crime, so the judiciary is unnecessary and counterintuitive.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,256
34,056
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
This guy's argument against impeachment of Trump is that the entire process is flawed because it doesn't include the judiciary.

It's not a good argument since we could have a government in power that is actively compromising security but remains in power for the whole term because the judiciary took so long to process the investigation.

Part of the impeachment deal is to streamline the process and we do that by acknowledging that a president can be impeached without needing to commit a crime, so the judiciary is unnecessary and counterintuitive.
Dropping all pretense of justice and fair process isn't a winning strategy.
 

Sacred

Member
Aug 22, 2018
515
543
320
This guy's argument against impeachment of Trump is that the entire process is flawed because it doesn't include the judiciary.

It's not a good argument since we could have a government in power that is actively compromising security but remains in power for the whole term because the judiciary took so long to process the investigation.

Part of the impeachment deal is to streamline the process and we do that by acknowledging that a president can be impeached without needing to commit a crime, so the judiciary is unnecessary and counterintuitive.
No the point of impeachment is that the acting President did commit a crime or circumvented the constitution, which is why the Judiciary branch has to be included.

Let's just throw out due process because it doesn't fit our agenda. /s
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Schrödinger's cat

dragonfart28

Gab Ambassador
Jun 12, 2009
4,890
583
1,050
No the point of impeachment is that the acting President did commit a crime or circumvented the constitution, which is why the Judiciary branch has to be included.

Let's just throw out due process because it doesn't fit our agenda. /s
It's the same agenda, whether you're Republican or Democrat.

You don't need to commit a crime to be impeached.

That's been true since day 1.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
5,328
7,054
880
Oh so they ran out of evidence and now the austere scholars get to tell us what the non-evidence means.

Snore. This isn't season 2. This is a spinoff. Wake me up when the final articles of impeachment are up for a vote.
Its more like a doujinshi, not an actual spinoff with an ahegao Schiff and Nancy bathing in DNC circlejerk.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,594
834
1,650
Yes, and in the age of the internet we're having more witnesses weigh in and offer opinions. If you are relying on these hearings and headlines as your source of information, you are -- knowingly or not -- being fed a narrative. I don't need unelected officials to explain why these "corrupt acts" matter. The impeachment has gone off the rails when the austere scholars are the Hail Mary pass. I won't be browbeaten for not taking these "experts" seriously. Anyone who has watched these hearings has a right to be skeptical.


The process has been partisan from the beginning:

- closed-door hearings until Dems got tricked into pushing into public hearings
- limitations on which witnesses could be called and what questions could be asked during the hearing
- hand-picked scholars parroting the same talking points after the hearings are over

Even if you agree that Trump should be impeached, it should be obvious by this point that Dems botched their delivery. They are bleeding out.
Given how off-base the bullet points you’re parroting I’m more inclined to believe this was less botched by the Dems and more a successful operation by the president’s defenders to throw up chaff to distract everyone from the actual proper process that’s happening.
 

Sacred

Member
Aug 22, 2018
515
543
320
It's the same agenda, whether you're Republican or Democrat.

You don't need to commit a crime to be impeached.

That's been true since day 1.
A high crime, a misdemeanor, skirting the constitution, whatever you want to call it. They are all still crimes, so fucking clueless.
 

dragonfart28

Gab Ambassador
Jun 12, 2009
4,890
583
1,050
Oh, I see, it's now come to this talking point. Reminds me of the Dems spouting off "it's just a job interview!" as they tried to ruin Kavanaugh's life.
Kavanaugh is the perfect example because he wasn't acquitted on the basis of innocence to a crime.

He was acquitted because of a vote in government.

Like that process, this is also one that's based on the court of public opinion, not law, though law can be introduced as a strengthening agent.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,256
34,056
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Given how off-base the bullet points you’re parroting I’m more inclined to believe this was less botched by the Dems and more a successful operation by the president’s defenders to throw up chaff to distract everyone from the actual proper process that’s happening.
Right, it's those pesky Trump defenders throwing up chaff again. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Sorry, but we're talking about the guy who led the country around by the nose with Russiagate hearings. Skepticism is the sensible default.

You are welcome to make the case that these proceedings are credible in spite of the exceptions to normal process that I mentioned.

Like that process, this is also one that's based on the court of public opinion, not law, though law can be introduced as a strengthening agent.
Court of public opinion = mob rule. When you have to appeal to mob rule...

Like I said, it's all falling apart. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ryujin and Cybrwzrd

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,594
834
1,650
Right, it's those pesky Trump defenders throwing up chaff again. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Sorry, but we're talking about the guy who led the country around by the nose with Russiagate hearings. Skepticism is the sensible default.

You are welcome to make the case that these proceedings are credible in spite of the exceptions to normal process that I mentioned.
You haven’t noted exceptions, you’ve noted either parts of the normal process or straight up nonsense.
 

dragonfart28

Gab Ambassador
Jun 12, 2009
4,890
583
1,050
Kavanaugh was charged with a crime? What was he acquitted of to begin with?
That was my point.

There was no acquittal from a crime because he could just as easily been prevented from becoming a justice without committing one.

At the end of the day, this is process about finding out if people will agree to remove someone in power. The barometer doesn't need to be crime, it could just as easily be your secretary jerking you off.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Hotspurr

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
910
1,008
410
Poor Turley,
Has to sit there and lie through his teeth.
The goal posts have been moved to "what is the precise definition of bribery". Hahaha.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,256
34,056
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Poor Turley,
Has to sit there and lie through his teeth.
The goal posts have been moved to "what is the precise definition of bribery". Hahaha.
When the charges have flip-flopped between "quid pro quo" to "extortion" to "bribery" and then back to "quid pro quo", it's incredibly sad that we have to slow down and remind people what the definition of words are before determining if someone is guilty of that word. It's even worse when people like yourself get upset about it.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Schrödinger's cat

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,465
2,739
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
The goal posts have been moved to "what is the precise definition of bribery". Hahaha.
The goal posts have been moving ever since November 8th, 2016. The people moving them happen to be the ones incapable of accepting the fact that he got elected.

Remember when Trump was a Russian agent? Remember when Trump was going to start World War III? Remember when Trump called white nationalists very fine people? Remember when Trump was going to crash the markets/economy? Remember when Trump was a racist? And on and on... Almost three years into his time in office and Dems are having an extremely difficult time tying a crime or impeachable offense to him. It's almost like all those claims had little to no merit.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Bladed Thesis

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,223
3,481
1,010
from the actual proper process that’s happening.
Proper Process like the President not being able to have counsel or able to have his counsel removed at any time for any reason?

Proper process as in the GOP can't cross-examine witnesses but the dems can?

Proper process like blocking GOP from asking certain questions but will allow the dems to ask those same questions later?
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Schrödinger's cat

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
5,081
2,914
565
USA
Each one of these professors should have their license to practice law revoked with prejudice. Erasing high crimes and misdemeanors from the Constitution will do even more damage to our country than Barack Obama drone striking Americans without due process or shredding the fourth amendment with the surveillance state he used against his political rivals.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
27,203
31,866
1,170
Each one of these professors should have their license to practice law revoked with prejudice. Erasing high crimes and misdemeanors from the Constitution will do even more damage to our country than Barack Obama drone striking Americans without due process or shredding the fourth amendment with the surveillance state he used against his political rivals.
They would love it if they could tear the Constitution to shreds.

Then, they would be some of the first off to the gulag if they slip up outlasted their usefulness.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

ilsayed

Member
Nov 7, 2018
271
167
225
"He asked if the Ukraine president can do him a favor and the Ukraine president said NO, we had already investigate this and the claim is baseless"

Uh no, that's not what happened or how anything went down, this lady just got away with lying on TV about Bullshit, what kind of hearing is this?
this was a hypothetical and part of a larger point. you have to pay attention to what's being said if you're gonna cry about it.
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,502
1,143
920
Wtf. I thought the judiciary would just vote after those hearings. Do they believe anyone is going to change their minds at this point? Let’s get this road on the show. Although it’s probably a good strategy to stretch this out and strangle Trump of any positives these Holidays.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,594
834
1,650
Don't bother refuting me or anything. 🤷‍♀️

Your lack of contribution goes nicely with the Dem's lack of evidence.
I was typing on my phone between meetings, but against my better judgment...

- closed-door hearings until Dems got tricked into pushing into public hearings
The entire pretext for this complaint is bullshit. A mix of closed-door and open-door hearings was the norm for Nixon and Clinton, and the Democrats always wanted televised hearings because that's when they'd be able to have the American people hear from the witnesses themselves. Republicans were both in the closed-door sessions and allowed equal time to question. So why keep fucking this chicken? Either because you have nothing else, or you can't even understand why this talking point is inaccurate and stupid for anyone to use as a point of complaint.

- limitations on which witnesses could be called and what questions could be asked during the hearing
They've said these things could be put to a vote, just as in other proceedings. Keep in mind, though, they're dealing with an administration that has been unprecedented in its refusal to cooperate, answer subpoenas, and let witnesses testify. Meanwhile the GOP line is to complain about a lack of evidence while doing everything they can to block further evidence from being presented.

- hand-picked scholars parroting the same talking points after the hearings are over
And when you can't go to the substance of what they're saying, you complain about this.