republicans have no shame

[DCHawk1]

You should take some deep breaths. I'm not against you on this -- at least where the "facts" are concerned. I think I've been fairly clear about that. Nevertheless, my desire for transparency has, apparently, sent you into a tizzy.

My apologies for not grasping how deeply invested you are in your faith that your perspective shall not be contradicted even in the slightest.

[DCHawk1]

well, to ponder the assertion that it IS a nakedly partisan effort -- is that meant to suggest it is partisan cuz it's a legit witch hunt by democrats? or cuz republicans are so reluctant to acknowledge there may be a legit constitutional crisis?

What constitutional crisis, exactly, are you talking about?

The is the way -- in general -- that the process is supposed to work, as prescribed by the...uhh... constitution.

The naked partisanship is reflected in the fact that everything has, thus far, been done in contravention of precedent and with the explicit aim of denying the minority party any say or stake in the process.

[Geezer]

Bullshit

Repub hack whining about fairness. JFC

[Shirley]

You should take some deep breaths. I'm not against you on this -- at least where the "facts" are concerned. I think I've been fairly clear about that. Nevertheless, my desire for transparency has, apparently, sent you into a tizzy.

My apologies for not grasping how deeply invested you are in your faith that your perspective shall not be contradicted even in the slightest.

And when you can't argue process, bring out your tried and true, "you must be oUtRAged" maneuver.

At least Louie Gohmert and Matt Gaetz, two of the republicans who stormed the SCIF today, appreciate your support.

[Shirley]

[DCHawk1]

I'd explain to you again that I don't care about them and, moreover, that I don't disagree with the general perception that Trump has engaged in impeachable behavior, but all of this is, apparently, lost on you.



Which TOTALLY proves that you're not overreacting.

[Shirley]

Patriotic, strong on defense, "conservative" republican:

[Shirley]

[Shirley]

Never Trumper, i.e., "human scum", Charlie Sykes:

[Shirley]

Wow, check out the mooch:

[Deleted User 89]

well, to ponder the assertion that it IS a nakedly partisan effort -- is that meant to suggest it is partisan cuz it's a legit witch hunt by democrats? or cuz republicans are so reluctant to acknowledge there may be a legit constitutional crisis?

What constitutional crisis, exactly, are you talking about?

The is the way -- in general -- that the process is supposed to work, as prescribed by the...uhh... constitution.

The naked partisanship is reflected in the fact that everything has, thus far, been done in contravention of precedent and with the explicit aim of denying the minority party any say or stake in the process.

that’s such bs

what precedent, exactly?

what say or stake do pubs want/need?

[Shirley]

More evidence that Sam reads this forum:

[DCHawk1]

More evidence that Sam reads this forum:

I'd agree, but it might make posters on the other board shit themselves.

[DCHawk1]

well, to ponder the assertion that it IS a nakedly partisan effort -- is that meant to suggest it is partisan cuz it's a legit witch hunt by democrats? or cuz republicans are so reluctant to acknowledge there may be a legit constitutional crisis?

What constitutional crisis, exactly, are you talking about?

The is the way -- in general -- that the process is supposed to work, as prescribed by the...uhh... constitution.

The naked partisanship is reflected in the fact that everything has, thus far, been done in contravention of precedent and with the explicit aim of denying the minority party any say or stake in the process.

that’s such bs

what precedent, exactly?

what say or stake do pubs want/need?

What precedent? All three previous impeachment efforts?

[twocoach]

More evidence that Sam reads this forum:

Curious since I did not have internet at the time and barely watched tv back then, was Ken Starr's investigation transparent as it was happening? Was Clinton/his lawyers/Congressional Dems allowed to question witnesses as Starr did?

Isnt what is going on right now in these impeachment inquiries basically the same fact finding mission that the Starr Report was?

[DCHawk1]

No.

[Geezer]

yes

[Geezer]

An impeachment process against Richard Nixon began in the United States House of Representatives on October 30, 1973, following the "Saturday Night Massacre" episode of the Watergate scandal. The House Judiciary Committee set up an impeachment inquiry staff and began investigations into possible impeachable offenses by Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States. The process was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the House of Representatives granted the Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Nixon[2] of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to Watergate. This investigation was undertaken one year after the United States Senate established a select committee to investigate the 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., and the Nixon Administration's attempted cover-up of its involvement.

[twocoach]

No.

So there was no inquiry phase of the Clinton impeachment process? Or this inquiry phase is different than that inquiry phase because (whatever)?

I am seriously just trying to determine why (besides the obvious "because they can't argue the actual facts") this process is seen as so different. Arent there Republicans on the current committees hearing these proceedings and interviews with witnesses?

[Deleted User 89]

yes, there are