Quote from: Viper1 on October 18, 2019, 10:56:23 AM

Yes, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. And so all the things like facing your accuser, due process and the like, simply don't apply which also means they write their own form of subpoena. Impeachment is basically like a grand jury proceeding and indictment. Trump will have his turn to defend himself etc if he gets impeached (indited) and it goes to the senate for "trial". So what's your point?

As for issuing his own subpoenas etc, I get the impression it has nothing to do with impeachment, but which committee is doing things. If I was Pelosis I'd probably do the same thing just so he couldn't turn it into a circus and just get it done and then, assuming they want to go through with it, get it into the hands of the senate as soon as possible and let them have their shit show.

I really don't get the whole "real impeachment" thing. Congress can do things how they want. The right just throws out "prior presidential" impeachments as precedent but what about all the other impeachments. The constitution seems pretty crystal clear to me, congress has sole power and can run things however they want. If he gets impeached, then maybe he should try and take it to the supreme court and get a ruling on it or something. If it's such a big deal, then maybe they should have written some laws or do some constitutional amendments to set out exact procedures to follow. But really, do you think either side wants to really do that? They all love the show they get to put on far to much. I must say though, I'm a bit surprised at how little the Dems are making this a show. I thought it would be a hell of a lot more. Almost makes me think they're actually serious about it.

Funny that you would post links to pretty much all right wing sources and then talk about other peoples confirmation bias. I also noted that most of them showed a hell of lot of "red" on newsguard for "This website severely violates basic standards of credibiilty and transparency". I find that humorous since it's not exactly tough to do things in a way to get some green from that tool so the overall rating shows green. Even breitbart shows up as green (despite two categories I would consider very important being red for them)

You don't have ANY fucking clue what you are talking about, so save us both some time and just shut the fuck up. You are joining in halfway through this conversation, not bothering to read anything, and just parroting what your hive mind buddies are saying.

The subpoenas don't exist, they are requests with no force of law. Of course you know this because you didn't just skip reading the actual "subpoenas" and jump right into parrot mode now did you? Oh Pelosi wants to prevent a shit show? Well clearly she is doing a fine job! If she wanted it over as soon as possible, she would just call a vote, no one is stopping her, but as I explained and you promptly ignored, she can't do that because if would expose widespread corruption within the Democrat party.

You don't really get this whole thing, period. You have no problem having strong opinions about it though now do you? Again, you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about and just want to join the collective parrot symphony. I explained all of these things you are criticizing using the ACTUAL supposed subpoena documents as well as actual subpoena forms. The additional articles are just there to demonstrate I am by far not the only one saying this. OF COURSE they are all "right wing" do you really think CNN or The Huffington Post would report on this even if they knew it was true? OF COURSE NOT. Attacking the source or the lean of the source is not a valid argument. Your appeal to authority fallacy in sourcing Newsguard is not a valid argument either.

Also, you will notice, you didn't actually refute anything I said, you just repeated past talking points, made several logical fallacies, and declared your beliefs as facts with no substantiation. You are contributing absolutely NOTHING to this conversation, so unless you do in the future I am probably just going to ignore you, because it doesn't make any sense to put this much effort into replies to some one who doesn't bother to read anything, refute anything, and just vomits up what everyone else is saying understanding none of it.

Quote from: suchmoon on October 18, 2019, 01:04:41 PM

Then what's the problem with Trump's impeachment not being a criminal trial? You're kinda all over the place with your itch to prove... something.

Just because you jumped into the conversation midway and didn't bother to read or understand everything discussed doesn't make me all over the place,it just makes you a lazy person with an agenda.

The whole point of the criminal proceeding discussion was to prove the point that the "subpoenas" had no force of law and were not actual subpoenas. The Nixon impeachment was referenced and I made the point his subpoenas were based on a criminal proceeding, which he article of impeachment was based upon for him being in contempt of it. I will let your mom know you said hi.