• To celebrate the release of Halo: The Master Chief Collection on Steam, Xbox Games Studios has provided 5 Steam copies of the game and 5 Xbox One copies of the game! We will be giving these away in the Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Some Steam copies will also be given away to the PC Gaming Era community.
  • An old favorite feature returns: Q&ERA is back! This time we'll be collecting questions for Remedy Entertainment, makers of Max Payne, Alan Wake, Quantum Break, and Control. Members can submit questions for the next 2 days, 23 hours, 42 minutes, 43 seconds. Submissions will close on Dec 12, 2019 at 12:00 AM.

Impeachment Hearings Day 5, Dr. Fiona Hill and David Holmes testify (live now). This is the last one!

DrewFu

Member
Apr 19, 2018
7,604
Alright! So this inquiry is gonna go back and cover obstruction of justice claims next right? For Mueller Report and the Ukrainian incident?
I’m loving all of the hand wringing and crying from Trump and his supporters throughout this process.
I think the inquiry is basically wrapped up at this point. Next is to bring the report to the House judiciary committee.
 

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,139
I have been NPA for 20 years. I don’t like party affiliation but I also don’t vote republican so there is that too.
Yeah, I don’t like the party system and am registered as an independent. But I don’t think I’ve ever voted Republican and at this point I never will no matter what they do or how great a candidate they put up. The party is dead to me.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,250
That fact that repubs will do nothing after all of this cements in my mind that our country is absolutely done. There is zero recovery from this. A republican congressman was talking on NPR this morning and I to turn it off. All of this sucks.
 

Version 3.0

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,581
if he doesnt get removed that means no president can ever be impeached and removed from office.. This is VERY dangerous.
We can't say "ever". Nixon would have been removed had he not resigned. And, if it were a Democrat in office now who did any number of things Trump has done, he/she would've been removed. Democrats confronted with this level of corruption and evidence of it, would not put party over the law or the country.

Of course, a Democrat would know better than to try any of this shit, so that point is probably moot.

I'd put what you said in another way: if there is overwhelming evidence of the president committing the primary act that impeachment was designed to correct (abuse of power for personal gain), and one of the crimes specifically listed in the Constitution as impeachable (bribery), is not removed from office, then our system of government has failed and is broken.

That is true. The GOP has broken our government. But even that doesn't have to be permanent.
 

Doc Kelso

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,971
NYC
That fact that repubs will do nothing after all of this cements in my mind that our country is absolutely done. There is zero recovery from this. A republican congressman was talking on NPR this morning and I to turn it off. All of this sucks.
There are literally 0 consequences for Republicans to do anything that doesn’t line their pockets. The idea of a civil servant died the moment it became apparent that losing re-election is meaningless. They can just get a job lobbying or working at a law firm.
 

JetmanJay

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,265
I think the inquiry is basically wrapped up at this point. Next is to bring the report to the House judiciary committee.
Whaaat? There’s so much more evidence of corruption and wrongdoing in the White House and with the Trump administration, why stop here? Is this just because Dems are worried this will drag into campaigning time for the senators?

Did this Impeachment Inquiry Intel committee vote somehow on throwing all of their eggs into the “Ukrainian basket”? Before this Ukrainian thing there was a laundry list of items the Inquiry was going to be investigating, right?
 

DrewFu

Member
Apr 19, 2018
7,604
Whaaat? There’s so much more evidence of corruption and wrongdoing in the White House and with the Trump administration, why stop here? Is this just because Dems are worried this will drag into campaigning time for the senators?

Did this Impeachment Inquiry Intel committee vote somehow on throwing all of their eggs into the “Ukrainian basket”? Before this Ukrainian thing there was a laundry list of items the Inquiry was going to be investigating, right?
They don't need any more. The point is to impeach him, and they want it done before the end of the year - which is smart.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
9,799
Interesting bit from Poliera:

This is interesting- says that Dems can ask for an immediate ruling on Bolton, Mulvaney, etc. testifying during senate hearings since they have not already sent it to the court

The thought is that since the chief justice is presiding the Senate trial, he can instantly OK subpoenas that aren't already going through the courts.
 

JetmanJay

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,265
They don't need any more. The point is to impeach him, and they want it done before the end of the year - which is smart.
I think they absolutely need more than this. I mean, the House is actually just going to let him slide on obstruction of justice charges? Seriously? Nothing on emoluments?


The vote will pass the House but to put maximum pressure on the Senate, I think we’re going to need a barrage and salvo of varied corruption, that all of these Republican senators will have to show their constituents they vote for instead of against.
 

Speely

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
4,730
Interesting bit from Poliera:



The thought is that since the chief justice is presiding the Senate trial, he can instantly OK subpoenas that aren't already going through the courts.
Huh. That's really interesting. This would be in line with the House's approach thus far of moving things along quickly to get to the endgame sooner than later.

I hope at least some of this is what's happening.
 

TheYanger

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,520
I think they absolutely need more than this. I mean, the House is actually just going to let him slide on obstruction of justice charges? Seriously? Nothing on emoluments?


The vote will pass the House but to put maximum pressure on the Senate, I think we’re going to need a barrage and salvo of varied corruption, that all of these Republican senators will have to show their constituents they vote for instead of against.
The pressure isn't realistically getting higher than treason. Everything else muddies it, and really it's all for public opinion before the vote since they won't oust him anyway. Public opinion sways more easily from the most easily digestible stuff possible. It's insanely clear cut as it stands.
 

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,747
I think they absolutely need more than this. I mean, the House is actually just going to let him slide on obstruction of justice charges? Seriously? Nothing on emoluments?


The vote will pass the House but to put maximum pressure on the Senate, I think we’re going to need a barrage and salvo of varied corruption, that all of these Republican senators will have to show their constituents they vote for instead of against.
Don't worry, Judiciary is pretty much set to add a bunch more to the impeachment once they get the report from Intelligence. In fact, they will schedule their own public hearings and it's expected after Monday when the Dems inevitably win their McGahn case, that the Judiciary is probably going to pull on some Mueller witnesses. And maybe this will also get some of the folks who so far have ignored Congress with Ukraine to answer a subpoena.
And then we have the Mueller grand jury materials, which by itself contains information to probably launch another impeachment inquiry alone.
And then the Mazars case, which also is its own impeachment inquiry.

So still some game left in the House to include some oversight in the impeachment articles. Pelosi came out for a reason the other day to say that impeachment might drag past New Years. And that's fantastic news. There are some vital court cases, VITAL, that should be factored into impeachment.
 

JetmanJay

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,265
The pressure isn't realistically getting higher than treason. Everything else muddies it, and really it's all for public opinion before the vote since they won't oust him anyway. Public opinion sways more easily from the most easily digestible stuff possible. It's insanely clear cut as it stands.
I disagree. The Inquiry plan prior to the Ukrainian event had more than one type of crime/abuse lined up for hearings and investigation. Swaying public opinion would be far easier with more crimes visible and identifiable.
Granted that Republicans will defend him no matter what, but let’s not make it easy for them to do so.
Arguing with Trump loving co-workers this week, I’d get sick of reminding them about how the Mueller Report didn’t exonerate him, and raised a lot of questions on obstruction, the redacted portions, and how in the hell crimes by Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadapolous, etc. don’t show involvement in some way on his part. Their reply? “It’s nothing. They got nothing. Why is no one talking about that?” I don’t know, dumbass Trump voter. I don’t know. 🤷‍♂️
 

JetmanJay

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,265
Don't worry, Judiciary is pretty much set to add a bunch more to the impeachment once they get the report from Intelligence. In fact, they will schedule their own public hearings and it's expected after Monday when the Dems inevitably win their McGahn case, that the Judiciary is probably going to pull on some Mueller witnesses. And maybe this will also get some of the folks who so far have ignored Congress with Ukraine to answer a subpoena.
And then we have the Mueller grand jury materials, which by itself contains information to probably launch another impeachment inquiry alone.
And then the Mazars case, which also is its own impeachment inquiry.

So still some game left in the House to include some oversight in the impeachment articles. Pelosi came out for a reason the other day to say that impeachment might drag past New Years. And that's fantastic news. There are some vital court cases, VITAL, that should be factored into impeachment.

Awesome!!! So glad to hear this. I hope you’re right. Makes zero sense to stop now while there is blood in the water. Let him keep getting devoured by multiple points of inquiry until there’s nothing left of him. I want Trump voters to walk around dejected and embarrassed for all the shit we know he’s done, that FOX News refuses to cover.
 

Effect

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,370
Don't worry, Judiciary is pretty much set to add a bunch more to the impeachment once they get the report from Intelligence. In fact, they will schedule their own public hearings and it's expected after Monday when the Dems inevitably win their McGahn case, that the Judiciary is probably going to pull on some Mueller witnesses. And maybe this will also get some of the folks who so far have ignored Congress with Ukraine to answer a subpoena.
And then we have the Mueller grand jury materials, which by itself contains information to probably launch another impeachment inquiry alone.
And then the Mazars case, which also is its own impeachment inquiry.

So still some game left in the House to include some oversight in the impeachment articles. Pelosi came out for a reason the other day to say that impeachment might drag past New Years. And that's fantastic news. There are some vital court cases, VITAL, that should be factored into impeachment.
Hadn't realized she said that. That's good because there is more to cover, especially if they can finally make certain people appear. In addition to that having this go into the new year does provide the opportunity to keep this fresh in the mind of voters. Have all this information out there so when republicans eventually do let him slide they'll still have to answer for it when it comes to the election. That's also what republicans likely fear. They don't want to take go against Trump but those that run state wide need to answer for putting their stamp on what is clearly wrong and even illegal behavior.
 

Malleymal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,898
Interesting bit from Poliera:



The thought is that since the chief justice is presiding the Senate trial, he can instantly OK subpoenas that aren't already going through the courts.
but isn't this done in the senate? They have control over who or what gets subpoenaed write? Just like the democrats had control over who was brought in and subpoenaed in the house? Or am I wrong?

I think the senate will make a mockery of this whole thing, just like the house did before 2018.
 

Garrett 2U

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
2,376
When Democrats are looking to John Bolton to do ‘the right thing’, that’s how you know our government is in a bad spot.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
9,799
but isn't this done in the senate? They have control over who or what gets subpoenaed write? Just like the democrats had control over who was brought in and subpoenaed in the house? Or am I wrong?

I think the senate will make a mockery of this whole thing, just like the house did before 2018.
The justice will be able to approve the subpoena before the republicans have a say. Which is to say, the Republicans would then have to vote to overrule their own chief justice and have to explain that.

On the other hand Roberts might be partisan about it and block subpoenas BUT then you'd be screwed going to the Supreme Court anyway, wouldn't you?
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
9,799
Wait really? I didn’t know that anyone could bring anyone in.
The article says as much (Not anyone but the House can when they send the articles):
The rules provide that the House managers can issue subpoenas to anyone, presumably including Bolton and Mulvaney. A senator could object that the testimony is irrelevant or covered by privilege. Rule VII provides that a ruling on such questions will usually be made by the Presiding Officer – the Chief Justice, unless he refers the decision to the full Senate. The Chief Justice would likely decide, in the first instance, claims of executive privilege or attorney-client privilege. He would also likely decide questions such as the crime/fraud exception and the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, as well as questions of waiver of any privilege. Finally, he would rule on subpoenas for the production of documents.

So, basically this is a way to skip half a year of appeals.
 

Effect

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,370
I wonder if the Senate republicans will be petty and dumb to try and bring in Hunter Biden into this even though it's clear there is no reason at all to involve him in this? Would Roberts shut down that for how transparent it is? The House GOP would easily try this if they had the power but honestly I'm not sure on the Senate.
 

dingobingo

Member
Dec 5, 2017
1,294
So, ive been watching the reactions post hearings. Its so pathetic, i really do hope these boomers lose everything when the con is exposed. 0 fking sympahty.
 

cagey

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,643
I wonder if the Senate republicans will be petty and dumb to try and bring in Hunter Biden into this even though it's clear there is no reason at all to involve him in this? Would Roberts shut down that for how transparent it is? The House GOP would easily try this if they had the power but honestly I'm not sure on the Senate.
Yes, they most certainly will.
 

HammerOfThor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,196
It's been a crazy work week for me.

Could someone summarize how things went? The good, the bad, the ugly? I don't even know where to begin.
 

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,139
It's been a crazy work week for me.

Could someone summarize how things went? The good, the bad, the ugly? I don't even know where to begin.
It went very well for Democrats and very bad for Republicans.....and the nation. People will spin what they want, but if you were paying attention it was incredibly obvious Trump is guilty.
Republicans had two witnesses which they tried to pretend were called by Democrats. One of them changed their story before testifying. There was a lot of finger pointing by the Republican operatives (it was all Giuliani, it was all Sondland, etc) but Sondland came with receipts. He showed clear communication between him and lots of high level officials like Pompeo and others. “Everybody was in the loop” was the big line from Sondland as was “was there quid pro quo? Yes.”
Republicans stopped arguing about the White House meeting being held back for the investigations and instead focused on a lack of evidence that the aid was held up for investigations. It was dumb. Not as dumb as when they tried to argue that Trump didn’t order Sondland to take orders from Giuliani because he said “talk to Giuliani” and not “go talk to Giuliani” - yes, that’s how fucking bad the arguments were. Also, very important, Trump was more interested in an announcement of investigations than actually knowing an investigation was started.
Watch the Hill and Holmes testimony. It goes through things much better and they actively refute bullshit talking points and educate the committee at multiple times. If there’s only one thing you try to watch from this week, it should be that because Hill summarizes everything from her perspective very well and Holmes does something similar. For instance, when asked why he didn’t report hearing Trump on a cell phone call to Sondland and how he learned Trump cared more about the bullshit investigations than Ukraine, he explained there was no need. The conclusion he reached was clearly reached by everybody else. Him hearing it from Trump’s mouth was only relevant in the context of a House inquiry and provided no new information to his boss or coworkers.
....there was a lot this week honestly. Sondland and Volker tried claiming they didn’t realize investigations into Burisma meant investigations into the Biden’s but Hill and Holmes called that nonsense. It was basically them trying to excuse their behavior - it wasn’t an actual defense of Trump.
 

JetmanJay

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,265
Any update about this? Oh man was it great.

Woah! I missed this one. 👏I don’t think Nunes could possible have shrunk into his own chair and spine as much as he did when Swalwell dropped this on his lap. That fact alone should have immediately disbarred him from this committee. He’s actively trying to steer the public wrong due to personal stakes in this investigation.
 

maxxpower

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,220
California
Bit from National Journal:

Josh Kraushaar @HotlineJosh

NEW Against the Grain: "Republicans Rely On Trumpian Tribalism to Survive"

"By offering an alternative version of reality during the impeachment trial, Republicans hope to rally their base … and exhaust persuadable voters."http://njour.nl/s/702881?unlock=1CZVND2TJ4ABJFBC …

4:04 PM - Nov 22, 2019
They already live in an alternate reality by watching nothing but Fox News.