House Intelligence Committee Draft Impeachment Report

Discussion in 'The Water Cooler' started by IUclover, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:57 PM.

  1. IUclover

    IUclover Benchwarmer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    249
    Summary Report: https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

    Full Report: https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

    More information and detail into what many of us knew is a corrupt WH Admin. One of the most interesting highlights is the fact that Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the impeachment inquiry, is implicated as well, along with Trump's personal attorney, Rudy G., who communicated with Nunes about creating their tall tale/conspiracy theory about Democrats and Ukraine. Yes, the ranking GOP member leading their side of the investigation was a player in the corruption. Pence was in the loop as well for what it's worth so there's that.

    And yes, Trump was in the loop too so there's no, "Well, his personal attorney was acting in his own discretion..."

    This administration is corrupt and full of the most terrible people. That's it. There are no countering arguments. Read the report, among all of the other nonsense and unethical conduct we've had to put up with the last few years. This isn't biased, this is facts with records outlining the facts. Go IU!
     
    T.M.P., DrHoops, Timmy! and 4 others like this.
  2. Cream&Crimson

    Cream&Crimson All-Big Ten
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Messages:
    3,970
    Likes Received:
    1,532
    We know what the countering arguments will be: Heresay. Witchunt. Fake news. Dems trying to reverse the election. Everybody does it - what's the big deal. Shifty Schiff is a pencil neck. etc.
     
  3. sglowrider

    sglowrider Hall of Famer
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    10,071
    Location:
    Tiny Red Dot
    [​IMG][​IMG] ...."Devin Nunes, who I barely know"... etc"

    The largest collection of Dumb & Dumbers ever assembled.
     
    IUclover likes this.
  4. IUclover

    IUclover Benchwarmer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    249
  5. Cortez88

    Cortez88 Junior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    How is the Nunes angle not a bigger story? He is the ranking minority member of the House Intel Committee. He sat at the head of the table during the entire impeachment inquiry. And the whole time he was a FACT witness that was directly involved in the underlying scheme to extort Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden. Then he repeatedly lied about his involvement. This is an outrageous scandal.
     
    tooold4, UncleMark and Ohio Guy like this.
  6. Ohio Guy

    Ohio Guy All-American
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    8,211
    Likes Received:
    788
    You can also add asking if Putin is all that bad and adding that he "does not hate America as much as these people do"

    That's a Tucker Carlson quote and the 'these people' he's referring to are American, 'liberal' journalists.
     
    Cream&Crimson likes this.
  7. mainway_toys

    mainway_toys All-Big Ten
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    3,110
    Likes Received:
    410
    Dude "pencil neck" is So last week. As of yesterday, he is a "deranged human being" and "a very sick man".
     
    Cream&Crimson likes this.
  8. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,665
    Likes Received:
    1,970
    Trump and the GOP have treated and continue to treat the American people with contempt. They may disagree with the allegations or that they rise to the level of impeachable offenses. Let them make their case in a sober respectful fashion. Instead they sneer and pound fists. Their answer to these by now well established allegations is "eff you". Let those who are concerned about civility in our discourse speak out about the behavior of the President and the leadership of the GOP who evince only contempt for their fellow citizens even as they proclaim affinity for our sworn foreign enemy who has attacked and is attacking ourselves and our allies.
     
    8 iu_a_att, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:33 AM
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019 at 11:03 AM
    Zizkov, DrHoops, Digressions and 2 others like this.
  9. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,665
    Likes Received:
    1,970
    All the witnesses so far including Turley is a worthwhile witness who brings the kind of gravity to the discussion that is important. We may marvel at his ability to support impeachment for Clinton and now oppose it for Trump but the tone and perspective of Turley is welcome so far. Turley's complaint is that the record is incomplete...but he doesn't address the obstruction that the President and the GOP have put in the way of investigation. Let's celebrate Turley's call to put reason above rage even while we calmly disagree with his assessment of the situation. Let's disagree, calmly, with Turley's absurd "both-siderism" as well.
     
  10. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    35,689
    Likes Received:
    5,859
    Why must we treat Turley’s predictable nonsense with any more respect than it deserves? Given his recent record, why should we presume his good faith?

    When someone advances obviously false both-siderism, they abandon any standing to call for reason over rage by making a mockery of reason. Why should we celebrate Turley’s disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty?

    Civility isn’t the most important virtue, as I thought you understood.
     
    DrHoops and tooold4 like this.
  11. tooold4

    tooold4 Benchwarmer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2018
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    214

    I turned it off when the Dem questions were directed to their own witnesses, Turley's testimony should have been exposed right there and right then. Ultimately the power to impeach belongs to the Congress not the courts. The president's obstruction attempts gives the wrong branch power to decide.
     
  12. UncleMark

    UncleMark Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,516
    Likes Received:
    8,773
    If I'm Nancy, I'm letting Lil' Devin know he's the first order of business for the ethics committee next term. His choice whether he wants to subject himself to that.
     
  13. UncleMark

    UncleMark Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,516
    Likes Received:
    8,773
    From what I was able to hear from Turley after the break, it sounds like he thinks anything short of Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue is going too far.
     
  14. Cortez88

    Cortez88 Junior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    Turley is shameless in his hypocrisy. he supported impeaching Bill Clinton in 1998. Here’s what he told Congress back then: “If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct.” Yet somehow today he doesn’t think extorting foreign countries to interfere in our elections is impeachable. Bad faith?
     
  15. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    39,721
    Likes Received:
    4,735
    I thought Major Garrett had a good observation after Turley's testimony, which was that the American public didn't get to hear an exchange between the witnesses regarding their respective views. If there are any folks who are qualified to challenge Turley, and vice versa, presumably they were in that room and we missed that opportunity today because of the way the hearing was conducted.
     
    tooold4 likes this.
  16. toastedbread

    toastedbread Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    16,731
    Likes Received:
    2,239
    Do you think the public actually cares to hear a bunch of elitist ivy legal snobs pontificating and splitting hairs about the constitution and impeachment? I say bring on the actual meat, crimes and evidence.
     
  17. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    39,721
    Likes Received:
    4,735
    There were good aspects from Turley's testimony today, which included (a) all of the actions of the president, congress and the rest of us should be governed by. and judged in accordance with, the rule of law, and (b) the Trump/Barr view of executive power under the Constitution (Article 2 Trumping Article 1) is all wet.

    The more problematical aspect of his testimony was his apparent insistence on more investigation prior to bringing charges because in his view there isn't sufficient evidence of a defined High Crime or Misdemeanor. He wants the American public to wade into the academic niceties of what amounts to the technicalities of appellate criminal law instead of seeing Trump's actions for what they are.

    I do think his demeanor won him lots of points . . . he's the pointy-headed professor who says what Trump supporters want to hear, so he's their house pointy-headed professor now. But his demeanor sets him apart from their rabble and covers his testimony with a veneer of respectability. That alone may be enough to sway some of the American public on the fence to lean against impeachment.
     
  18. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    39,721
    Likes Received:
    4,735
    Sure. It would have been better had they been given an opportunity to talk directly with each other. We'd have been treated to a pretty good exchange that would make the political talk shows on TV seem like the drivel they too often are.
     
  19. UncleMark

    UncleMark Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,516
    Likes Received:
    8,773
    Yabbut, they don't have the evidence, Trump has blocked the evidence, you can't impeach without the evidence, and you can't impeach him for obstruction for doing the blocking.

    Reminds me of the definition of chutzpah.
     
  20. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    39,721
    Likes Received:
    4,735
    Why? Because rage in response to mockery of reason does not serve reason. It serves only rage . . . and when rage is served it too makes a mockery of reason.

    Civility for its own sake might not be the highest virtue, but it is a virtue nonetheless, and its purpose is to serve the higher virtues. Without civility, the higher virtues can't flourish . . . as Trump himself has proven.
     
    20 Sope Creek, Dec 4, 2019 at 2:16 PM
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019 at 2:23 PM
    Tacoll, hoot1, stollcpa and 2 others like this.
  21. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    39,721
    Likes Received:
    4,735
    Hence Turley's insistence on more investigation including utilization of the courts to enforce the Congressional subpoenas.

    He's not wrong, in an academic sense, but he is wrong in a real world sense . . . the potential for Trump to invite foreign interference in the 2020 election and further undermine our self-governance is very real and the need for a speedy, as opposed to a ploddingly slow, impeachment process is just as real. It's a risk for Democrats to pursue this strategy, but if the risk is existential to our democracy, then so be it . . . .
     
  22. UncleMark

    UncleMark Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,516
    Likes Received:
    8,773
    Except that the constitution gives the house the SOLE power to impeach. Involving the courts diminishes that power. As always, IANAL, so ICBW.
     
  23. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    39,721
    Likes Received:
    4,735
    Yep.

    BTW, the sole power to impeach does not mean the sole power to interpret the constitution regarding the process of impeachment.
     
    hoot1 likes this.
  24. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    35,689
    Likes Received:
    5,859
    You’re accepting Turley’s frame that rage rather than reason supports Trump’s impeachment. And if it’s uncivil to say that Turley is spouting nonsense, then civility becomes something more like dishonesty.
     
  25. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    35,689
    Likes Received:
    5,859
    Under the Constitution, who other than the House would have constitutional authority to decide what the process of impeachment should be? I’ve not specifically delved into this, but my initial reaction is that the Constitution expressly empowers the House to both impeach and decide what its rules are.
     
    UncleMark likes this.
  26. UncleMark

    UncleMark Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,516
    Likes Received:
    8,773
    If the House defers to the courts regarding anything involved in impeachment, then would they not be diminishing their sole power? I would suggest their sole power would preclude that.

    In this practical case, since Trump has blocked evidence and testimony sought pursuant to this sole power, then the proper response is to lay a count of obstruction. Turley disagrees. But the other three don't. I'll go with the numbers. :)

    Edit to add:

    I suppose one could claim that the House already deferred when they asked the courts to enforce their subpoenas.
     
    hoot1 and Sope Creek like this.
  27. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,665
    Likes Received:
    1,970
    We shouldn't presume good faith. But the virtue of Turley's approach is that he offers an argument and asks only that we soberly assess the argument. Now, I find his argument absurd...particularly the idea that (1) there hasn't been sufficient investigation and (2) no crimes have been committed. If there is material and perspective so far missing that is due to clear and obvious obstruction that is, in fact illegal. Turley's argument fails but it is an argument that can be engaged on its own terms.
     
  28. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,665
    Likes Received:
    1,970
    This is also an argument that can be considered on its merits and dismissed. The fact that partisan feelings run high is, of course true. But the takeaway is that we shouldn't let those feelings govern our actions. The takeaway should sit heavily on the shoulders of the GOP who have decided to ignore and ridicule instead of sincerely engage with the case made by the Intelligence Committee.
     
  29. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    35,689
    Likes Received:
    5,859
    If you’re engaging Turley’s argument without regard to the role he’s actually playing, then you’re engaged at the level of pretense. I see nothing virtuous about that. Again, it seems more like dishonesty than civility to me.
     
  30. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    39,721
    Likes Received:
    4,735
    In the Nixon impeachment, SCOTUS determined the legitimacy of the congressional subpoenas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon
     
  31. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,665
    Likes Received:
    1,970
    I agree with this AND agree with the proposition that the proceedings would have been better served if the experts would have actually been asked to seriously consider the points each raised.
     
  32. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    39,721
    Likes Received:
    4,735
    Really? I hadn't been aware that Turley had framed the decision that way.

    I was just responding to your post, and consulted Maslow's hierarchy of needs in the process of doing so. I had no thought about Turley or his framing of anything.

    on edit: I don't think it's unclvil per se to say that Turley is spouting nonsense. How you go about saying it will determine which of your audience hears and/or agrees with your statement, though.
     
  33. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,665
    Likes Received:
    1,970
    Don't we understand that in legal proceedings the arguments offered are typically selected by the contestants are self-serving while doing their best to be legally plausible. I don't pretend that Turley sincerely believes what he says (although given human psychology it is plausible that he does) it just isn't and shouldn't be relevant...should it?
     
  34. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    35,689
    Likes Received:
    5,859
    But Turley is arguing that only partisan rage could possibly lead Democrats to impeach Trump for the Ukrainian shakedown. That strikes me as obvious bullshit. And (as you’ve said before) the partisan impeachment absurdity is pretty much entirely on the other side right now.

    I honestly don’t understand what point you’re making here.
     
  35. Cream&Crimson

    Cream&Crimson All-Big Ten
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Messages:
    3,970
    Likes Received:
    1,532
    I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that the Constitution does give the House sole responsibility to decide those rules; however, the courts, as always, would have jurisdiction to make a judgement whether said rules are unconstitutional.
     
  36. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    35,689
    Likes Received:
    5,859
    Well, since this discussion is about Turley’s testimony (which I actually listened to), maybe Turley’s actual testimony might have been a better first stop than Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
     
  37. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    39,721
    Likes Received:
    4,735
    Though not directly on point, since Marbury v. Madison the notion that courts' interpretation of the constitution supersedes that of the legislative and executive branches has been generally accepted. And you're right, congress has deferred to the courts for enforcement of its subpoena power.

    Is that in some question now?
     
  38. Sope Creek

    Sope Creek Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    39,721
    Likes Received:
    4,735
    Yeah, I listened to Turley's testimony too.

    The reference to Maslow's hierarchy of needs was in response to your reference to civility not being the highest virtue. Perhaps you'd forgotten the context you'd created . . . .

    on edit: Here's the version of Maslow's hierarchy of needs that I consulted . . . I found this via a Google search of "hierarchy of virtues" thinking there must be a well-accepted version of that hierarchy since you referenced civility not being the highest . . . an indication of the esteem I hold you in, BTW . . .

    [​IMG]
    Note that "respect of others" - synonymous with civility, in my opinion - is indeed not in the highest need category, but rather is foundational for higher needs such as morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving and acceptance of facts.
     
    38 Sope Creek, Dec 4, 2019 at 3:22 PM
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019 at 3:36 PM
  39. iu_a_att

    iu_a_att All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    7,665
    Likes Received:
    1,970
    I am only making the point that Turley is arguing something and that is an improvement over the previous tactic of giving the finger together with spittle-flecked nonsense. The argument is a bad and unpersuasive argument...it is enough to note why this is the case. Turley's motives shouldn't matter given that we do not have to rely on his authority.
     
  40. Rockfish1

    Rockfish1 Hall of Famer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    35,689
    Likes Received:
    5,859
    So Turley isn’t sincere, but we should pretend he is, because civility? Again, this is more like dishonesty than civility.
     

Share This Page