Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 04-25-2019, 04:25 AM
SOJA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 168
The smoking gun tape? I'm afraid I'm too young to have been around during Watergate and my knowledge of the events and ones surrounding are what I recall from The Post and the Mark Felt movies that came out a couple years ago. It never occurred to me growing up, becoming an adult and aging that we'd ever face another Nixon...
  #252  
Old 04-25-2019, 05:23 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
If the House sends over the articles of I. then McConnell can spend one day on sham 'hearings' then call for his acquittal vote, and be in perfect compliance with the Constitution. And no one can stop him.
This is not news to anyone. You're beating a dead horse here.

Quote:
Better: for the House to hold extensive and informative hearings before voting on the impeachment question.
Do you not understand that this is exactly what the impeachment process entails in the House? It seems like you're arguing the point without understanding this this very basic thing.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 04-25-2019 at 05:23 AM.
  #253  
Old 04-25-2019, 07:57 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Mitch changed some Senate rules just the other day, in order to limit debate on Federal judges to 2 hours each, rather than 30 hours as the Senate rules say - or rather, had said. So he can just as easily dispense with any Senate rules requiring an impeachment trial once the House passes articles of impeachment. (And my money says he will ditch them.)
He can get away with that only as long as he can prevent enough defections to keep his job. It would be very difficult for any of them but the hardline Fox loyalists to stick with the party line once impeachment is a fact and all the facts supporting it are public.
  #254  
Old 04-25-2019, 08:02 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
Mueller has done the work the Senate committee did, the difference is, it was on TV and everybody watched, whereas with Mueller, you have a pdf file that nobody will read, and besides, oh look, a kitteh video.
Everybody watched the HJC hearings because all three networks showed them live and there was nothing else on. There was a common understanding of the facts. Today, that wouldn't be true, at least not until Fox decides to cut him loose. They're already flying trial balloons with Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith as token voices of reality.
  #255  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:03 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Everybody watched the HJC hearings because all three networks showed them live and there was nothing else on. There was a common understanding of the facts. Today, that wouldn't be true, at least not until Fox decides to cut him loose. They're already flying trial balloons with Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith as token voices of reality.
Sure, that's true. My main point overall is that exposure of the DETAIL of the Mueller report is necessary.

There's a difference between hearing someone got shot, and seeing them get shot.

I don't care about whatever bullshit Trump and Giuliani and Fox come up with.
  #256  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:44 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
This is not news to anyone. You're beating a dead horse here.
Actually I think it is news to some, so not beating a dead horse.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Do you not understand that this is exactly what the impeachment process entails in the House? It seems like you're arguing the point without understanding this this very basic thing.
Is this exactly the impeachment process in the House? Because up to now, it hasn't been. In Watergate, the impeachment hearings were conducted by the Senate, not the House. And in the Clinton impeachment process, the House held no hearings. They simply took the Starr report and then voted to impeach, sending the matter again up to the Senate for hearings/removal proceedings.

Can you cite me to where this is "exactly the impeachment process" employed by the House? Or where in the Constitution the impeachment process allows the House to hold hearings? I mean yes, they can conduct investigative or oversight hearings -- that is always their prerogative. But impeachment hearings?

Not being snarky. I would really like this issue cleared up. I have yet to hear any talking head on any network refer to hearings conducted in the House as impeachment hearings. I think this lack of clarity has contributed greatly to misunderstanding the path Nancy Pelosi has chosen.
  #257  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:54 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Can you cite me to where this is "exactly the impeachment process" employed by the House? Or where in the Constitution the impeachment process allows the House to hold hearings? I mean yes, they can conduct investigative or oversight hearings -- that is always their prerogative. But impeachment hearings?
...I've provided two cites and I've posted the link to one of the cites twice. I've even quoted the relevant parts. Twice. But if you don't want to read my post here's a hint: google impeachment in the US. There is no shortage of relevant links.
  #258  
Old 04-25-2019, 10:02 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
But is there a meaningful distinction there? Say, for example, that Congress passes a resolution to hold hearings investigating that sketchy meeting at Trump Tower. Does the way those hearings are conducted change in any way depending on whether that resolution explicitly says that the hearings are for the purpose of deciding whether or not to impeach the President?
  #259  
Old 04-25-2019, 10:03 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,350
If the Administration blocks such requests saying... as they are doing... that there is no legitimate legislative need for these investigations, then "Impeachment" is the legislative remedy allowed by the Constitution.
  #260  
Old 04-25-2019, 10:46 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Is this exactly the impeachment process in the House? Because up to now, it hasn't been.
False. Impeachment proceedings in the House are whatever the House Judiciary determines to be needful. And in Nixon's case...

Quote:
In Watergate, the impeachment hearings were conducted by the Senate, not the House.
False. Impeachment hearings were held by the House Judiciary Committee starting May 4th 1972, resulting in the public revelation of much new information and evidence, finally culminating in an impeachment vote on Jul 27th 1972. The Senate never took up the matter at all, being that Sens. Goldwater and Rhodes convinced Nixon that the outcome was certain conviction. (a very easily discovered cite).

With the amount of evidence and witnesses Mueller has amassed, and the number of threads that Mueller left unpursued, obstructed, redacted, classified, or punted to Congress, I could easily see House impeachment proceedings taking 4-6 months if they're thorough.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 04-25-2019 at 10:47 AM.
  #261  
Old 04-25-2019, 11:02 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
The Senate did have its own investigatory hearings on Watergate, giving the impetus to the House to have the Judiciary Committee hold impeachment-oriented hearings.
  #262  
Old 04-25-2019, 11:10 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
False. Impeachment proceedings in the House are whatever the House Judiciary determines to be needful. And in Nixon's case...


False. Impeachment hearings were held by the House Judiciary Committee starting May 4th 1972, resulting in the public revelation of much new information and evidence, finally culminating in an impeachment vote on Jul 27th 1972. The Senate never took up the matter at all, being that Sens. Goldwater and Rhodes convinced Nixon that the outcome was certain conviction. (a very easily discovered cite).

With the amount of evidence and witnesses Mueller has amassed, and the number of threads that Mueller left unpursued, obstructed, redacted, classified, or punted to Congress, I could easily see House impeachment proceedings taking 4-6 months if they're thorough.
You've misquoted your own cite. The very first paragraph (Wikipedia):

Quote:
An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States[1] of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal. 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.
(emphasis mine)

There's more, but I don't think it is nearly as cut and dried as you have asserted. I would like to go further into this discussion, but I am pressed for time now. More later, unless you all have it resolved before I can return to the thread.
  #263  
Old 04-25-2019, 11:19 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
If the Administration blocks such requests saying... as they are doing... that there is no legitimate legislative need for these investigations, then "Impeachment" is the legislative remedy allowed by the Constitution.
ISTM, just like the shutdown, Pelosi wants to make sure that if she has to do the unpopular thing then she wants Trump to take the blame. So f it can be made publicly accepted that Trump's lawsuits blocking subpoenas are forcing the impeachment, then I would be on board.
  #264  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:30 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
That's it. It only makes sense to do it if the national mood is that it has to be done, not that it's merely partisan spite like the well-poisoning Clinton episode. We aren't there yet but it's possible with some more big revelations, or a stream of smaller ones.
  #265  
Old 04-25-2019, 01:40 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,851
What Carnal and Elvis said.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #266  
Old 04-25-2019, 01:58 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,350
Holy Hell, he really does have to shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue, doesn't he?
  #267  
Old 04-25-2019, 02:01 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,228

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by SOJA View Post
God are some of you quoting that pathological liar Lindsey Graham on his wordage of Clinton's misdeeds? Yikes. That dumbass, because I firmly believe he's gay, can't even be honest with himself and come out of his glass closet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOJA View Post
.... I would love to know what, probably stunning Latina way outside his league, turned him down for him to be such an utter dick later in life aside from the fact he was a dick in high school. There's a reason Jewish people call him a kapo.
I'm not sure what motivates these types of race based and sexuality based comments, but they are wholly inappropriate for this forum, and perhaps everywhere on this board. You've been around a while, but don't have that many posts so I will exercise restraint and caution you against this in the future.

[/moderating]
  #268  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:03 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
So, yes: this particular reason for holding off an impeachment vote is massively, vitally, imperatively important. It should immediately be broadcast far and wide.

There is no counter-argument. There really isn't.

Sure there is. It may be that Pelosi isn't for impeachment now, but if McGahn and others are subpoenaed and give compelling testimony, such that public support turns in favor of it, she may very well change her mind. IOW, she could be waiting to see how the political wind blows. Some have suggested that if Trump were impeached, McConnell might try to prevent the trial. It could that Pelosi, that despite what Mitch has done in the past, doesn't think there is any fucking way McConnell would try to stop it, and thus she isn't even considering that possibility. That is, she isn't trying to stop impeachment because she thinks the Senate would take control under Mitch put the kibosh on everything, but is simply not going to make a decision on it without more info. And yes, it may even be that like me, and RTFirefly and others, that Pelosi thinks Trump being harmed by the whole process more than helped is a distinct possibility.

And remember, Pelosi is on record as saying we shouldn't impeach for political reason, but we should also not impeach for political reasons.
  #269  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:04 PM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
You've misquoted your own cite. The very first paragraph (Wikipedia):

(emphasis mine)

There's more, but I don't think it is nearly as cut and dried as you have asserted. I would like to go further into this discussion, but I am pressed for time now. More later, unless you all have it resolved before I can return to the thread.
HMS transposed 1972 for 1974 a couple of times and I didn't read the rest of it. In any case:

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
People may need to go back and look at the sequence in Watergate:
  • The Senate opened a committee to investigate early in 1973
  • McCord went into a closed-door session and blew everything wide open, he gave them their roadmap for the investigation. It leaked, so they went to open hearings.
  • There were bombshell revelations during the course of the hearings, including the existence of the tapes.
  • The Senate committee finished and issued a report in June 1973
  • In early 1974, the House authorized Judiciary to investigate. Among other things, they subpoena'd the tapes, Nixon released edited versions, and Judiciary got a Supreme Court ruling for everything.
  • Judiciary voted out articles of impeachment end of July
  • The smoking gun tape was released after that but before a whole House vote was taken

Mueller has done the work the Senate committee did, the difference is, it was on TV and everybody watched, whereas with Mueller, you have a pdf file that nobody will read, and besides, oh look, a kitteh video. If the House thinks they can add to the list (for example on the financial front), they should. They better move fast. #1 should be to get McGahn up there ASAP, I know they already scheduled him, but Trump will surely attempt to block it.
  #270  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:07 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
So you don't care who wins the next election?
(Sorry, missed this the first time around...)

Yes, I do. I also care what they do after the next election.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #271  
Old 04-25-2019, 05:46 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd
So, yes: this particular reason for holding off an impeachment vote is massively, vitally, imperatively important. It should immediately be broadcast far and wide.

There is no counter-argument. There really isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Sure there is. It may be that Pelosi isn't for impeachment now, but if McGahn and others are subpoenaed and give compelling testimony, such that public support turns in favor of it, she may very well change her mind. ...
This would be a great counterargument to what I'd said, if what I'd said was "impeachment must be taken off the table."

But is that what I said? Let's see:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
I haven't seen anyone arguing that impeachment should be taken off the table. It should NOT be taken off the table.
Okay, then.





Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
ISTM, just like the shutdown, Pelosi wants to make sure that if she has to do the unpopular thing then she wants Trump to take the blame. So f it can be made publicly accepted that Trump's lawsuits blocking subpoenas are forcing the impeachment, then I would be on board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
That's it. It only makes sense to do it if the national mood is that it has to be done, not that it's merely partisan spite like the well-poisoning Clinton episode. We aren't there yet but it's possible with some more big revelations, or a stream of smaller ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
What Carnal and Elvis said.
Me four.
  #272  
Old 04-25-2019, 06:06 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
This would be a great counterargument to what I'd said, if what I'd said was "impeachment must be taken off the table."

I can see how you missed my point. I said a number of things there that aren't relevant to what you said. So to be clear, I mean that I don't agree with your assertion with that

Quote:
...the Senate hearings-----controlled by Mitch 'Dictator's Best Friend' McConnell, would be basically love-letters to Trump, with a few Democratic Senators grumbling around the edges.

So, yes: this particular reason for holding off an impeachment vote is massively, vitally, imperatively important. It should immediately be broadcast far and wide.
is valid, and thus is not a reason to hold off on anything. That is, I do not believe that it is a forgone conclusion that Trump will benefit from "love-letters" from Republicans more than he will be harmed by "hate-letters" from Democrats. Do you disagree? I want to be sure I understand you.

I think it is very possible that the impeachment process may harm Trump more than help him.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 04-25-2019 at 06:07 PM. Reason: typo
  #273  
Old 04-25-2019, 06:31 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,439
It is a sad state of affairs that somebody so deserving of impeachment can avoid it, solely because of political considerations. It's like the Democrats own a gun that is so prone to backfire that it's un-shootable. But, I think that's a valid assessment and Pelosi is doing the right thing under those circumstances.

Which is: hold pre-impeachment hearings on every possible slimy facet of Trump's personal and public life. These hearings will unfortunately last another 18 months, at least; and they may never actually end in an impeachment vote.

In other words: subject the bastard to The Benghazi Treatment. The irony is delicious.
  #274  
Old 04-25-2019, 06:57 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
.. I do not believe that it is a forgone conclusion that Trump will benefit from "love-letters" from Republicans more than he will be harmed by "hate-letters" from Democrats. Do you disagree? I want to be sure I understand you.
I think it is very possible that the impeachment process may harm Trump more than help him.
It depends on what you mean by "the impeachment process," to wit:

I believe extensive, targeted hearings into Trump's wrongdoing will be helpful to the goal of getting rid of Trump.

I believe any sort of hearings McConnell might hold in the Senate--likely testimonials from "faith leaders" and other people willing to say that Trump is the most wonderful person walking the earth, etc.--are going to be unhelpful to the goal of getting rid of Trump. Many on the left might assume that masses of Americans would react to such 'hearings' with disgust, but the fact is that masses of Americans aren't paying much attention to Trump's shenanigans, and would take laudatory 'hearings' at face value.

I believe that sending articles of impeachment to the Senate would result in a vote of acquittal for Trump, which would be enormously helpful to Trump (due to the large numbers of 'not paying much attention' voters as well as Trump's base). I therefore believe that enabling a quick acquittal vote would be unhelpful in the extreme to the goal of getting rid of Trump.

So, if by "the impeachment process" you mean a House vote to impeach, and then a Senate vote to acquit: no don't think that would harm Trump. But if you mean extensive, targeted hearings in the House, then, yes, I think that could harm Trump.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
It is a sad state of affairs that somebody so deserving of impeachment can avoid it, solely because of political considerations. It's like the Democrats own a gun that is so prone to backfire that it's un-shootable. But, I think that's a valid assessment and Pelosi is doing the right thing under those circumstances.

Which is: hold pre-impeachment hearings on every possible slimy facet of Trump's personal and public life. These hearings will unfortunately last another 18 months, at least; and they may never actually end in an impeachment vote.

In other words: subject the bastard to The Benghazi Treatment. The irony is delicious.
Agree entirely.

Last edited by Sherrerd; 04-25-2019 at 06:58 PM.
  #275  
Old 04-25-2019, 08:27 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
It depends on what you mean by "the impeachment process," to wit:

I believe extensive, targeted hearings into Trump's wrongdoing will be helpful to the goal of getting rid of Trump.
Me too. See below, but for now let me say I don't see how this can be true, but if it goes to a Senate trial all of sudden it's some great boon to Trump.

Quote:
I believe any sort of hearings McConnell might hold in the Senate--likely testimonials from "faith leaders" and other people willing to say that Trump is the most wonderful person walking the earth, etc.--are going to be unhelpful to the goal of getting rid of Trump.

I believe that sending articles of impeachment to the Senate would result in a vote of acquittal for Trump, which would be enormously helpful to Trump (due to the large numbers of 'not paying much attention' voters as well as Trump's base). I therefore believe that enabling a quick acquittal vote would be unhelpful in the extreme to the goal of getting rid of Trump.



So, if by "the impeachment process" you mean a House vote to impeach, and then a Senate vote to acquit: no don't think that would harm Trump. But if you mean extensive, targeted hearings in the House, then, yes, I think that could harm Trump.
Impeachment process (and since this doesn't really cover the whole bit, hereafter known simply as "the process" ): yes, extensive hearings, then a successful House vote to impeach, then a Senate trial.

Whether or not Trump is acquitted, I think he will be harmed more than helped, or there will be no appreciable change at all. Trump's approval/disapproval rating has stayed remarkably similar for the last year, as seen on 538.com - April 25, 2018: 53.7 to 40.5. Today: 53.2 to 41.4. I don't see anyone coming over to Trump's side because of the process and those ratings suggest that people are for the most part decided. Therefore, since I am unaware of any facts that can successfully counter was has been shown in the report, the process can thus only harm him. Now, if there are such counter-arguments, then it's a whole different ballgame. I hope it's obvious that there is loads of conjecture implicit in what I'm saying, so I am by no means saying I'm sure of this. It just makes the most sense as of now.

ETA: when I say extensive, I don't mean like has been suggested elsewhere, a year or more or such. I mean a month-long or so process, similar to the 4-5 months it took for Clinton.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 04-25-2019 at 08:30 PM.
  #276  
Old 04-25-2019, 08:35 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,760
That is, a month of hearings, but an overall time-frame of 4-5 months.
  #277  
Old 04-25-2019, 08:36 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
It is a sad state of affairs that somebody so deserving of impeachment can avoid it, solely because of political considerations.
I would argue strongly that obstructing justice pales in comparison to the Iran-Contra shenanigans but popular grandpa Reagan sailed through it. This has always been the state of affairs.

Last edited by CarnalK; 04-25-2019 at 08:37 PM.
  #278  
Old 04-26-2019, 01:01 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
You've misquoted your own cite.
I mistyped 1972 vs 1974 a couple of times, but to clear up:
Feburary 7, 1973 - Senate Res 60 establishes its Watergate investigation committee
May 17, 1973 - Hearings begin for that committee.
February 6, 1974 - US House res 803 passes, granting HJC authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach.
May 9, 1974 - US House begins formal impeachment proceedings.
July 27-30 - Impeachment articles passed.

You're correct in suggesting the Senate performed a broad investigation of its own, one that likely provided the House with information it needed.

However, as far as the actual *impeachment process*, the Senate never got involved at all. The house roughly a 5-month process including 2 months of hearings in which they considered some evidence from the Senate committee, as well as developed or collected some of their own evidence.

The takeaway here is that the House impeachment process isn't just a vote. The House has broad authority to hold its own hearings and appoint its own select investigative committees (as they did on Iran-Contra).
  #279  
Old 04-26-2019, 04:40 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
II believe any sort of hearings McConnell might hold in the Senate--likely testimonials from "faith leaders" and other people willing to say that Trump is the most wonderful person walking the earth, etc.
It's nice that you believe that, but Article 1 Section 3 of the US Constitution says you're wrong. When the Senate takes up articles of impeachment, it is an adversarial trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Not a one-sided softball hearing controlled by Mitch McConnell. Democrats will be represented by their impeachment managers who will be hitting very hard.

Now granted... it does end up effectively being a jury trial by a partial jury. But not many Republicans are going to feel comfortable sitting there getting hammered on national TV and responding with weak softballs.

Quote:
I believe that sending articles of impeachment to the Senate would result in a vote of acquittal for Trump, which would be enormously helpful to Trump...
We agree that acquittal is possible (though I'm not as convinced it will be a cakewalk). But the thing we really can't predict is how the landscape will be shifted by unfiltered exposure of Trump's shenanigans by House investigations, hearings, and the Senate trial. It will surely bring out a ton of damaging information even if he gets acquitted, but I think you may underestimate how positions can shift as this information comes out.

Quote:
So, if by "the impeachment process" you mean a House vote to impeach, and then a Senate vote to acquit: no don't think that would harm Trump. But if you mean extensive, targeted hearings in the House, then, yes, I think that could harm Trump.
It would be helpful if you'd talk about the actual process instead of what you imagine it is. It's on Wikipedia.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 04-26-2019 at 04:41 PM.
  #280  
Old 04-26-2019, 05:21 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
...The takeaway here is that the House impeachment process isn't just a vote. The House has broad authority to hold its own hearings and appoint its own select investigative committees (as they did on Iran-Contra).
The entire point of this discussion is "vote to impeach NOW" versus don't.

No one has claimed what you state here (that the House impeachment process is "just a vote.") But many have claimed that this vote MUST take place as soon as possible, otherwise terrible consequences will ensue. (Paraphrasing broadly, suggestions have been that the US will lose its moral standing in the world, Trump will believe he can get away with anything, Democrats will lose any right to claim they care about the Constitution, etc etc.)

So what you're arguing up there isn't in question at all. No one is arguing the contrary.



Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
... When the Senate takes up articles of impeachment, it is an adversarial trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Not a one-sided softball hearing controlled by Mitch McConnell. ...
I would suggest you check out that wikipedia article, and this time actually read it.

You seem to be assuming that Roberts would decide what hearings would be held and when and how long and who will testify.

Nope. That's all under McConnell's purview. Roberts will merely preside.

McConnell may well decide not to hold hearings at all. That's his decision--not Roberts'.
  #281  
Old 04-26-2019, 05:46 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
The entire point of this discussion is "vote to impeach NOW" versus don't.

But many have claimed that this vote MUST take place as soon as possible.
Many? Who has claimed there must be a vote as soon as possible without accompanying hearings and investigations? Can you name one?

Quote:
You seem to be assuming that Roberts would decide what hearings would be held and when and how long and who will testify.

Nope. That's all under McConnell's purview. Roberts will merely preside.
McConnell has the power to decide whether to change the Senate rules to have the trial at all. He could do that, and it would cost Republicans mightily. Once the trial starts, it's really not his ballgame anymore.

It seems like you're determined to make me wear down your imaginary concept of the process while walking back what you actually said, so let's save ourselves both the time and agree that the impeachment process is risky for all parties involved.
  #282  
Old 04-26-2019, 05:54 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I mistyped 1972 vs 1974 a couple of times, but to clear up:
Feburary 7, 1973 - Senate Res 60 establishes its Watergate investigation committee
May 17, 1973 - Hearings begin for that committee.
February 6, 1974 - US House res 803 passes, granting HJC authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach.
May 9, 1974 - US House begins formal impeachment proceedings.
July 27-30 - Impeachment articles passed.

You're correct in suggesting the Senate performed a broad investigation of its own, one that likely provided the House with information it needed.

However, as far as the actual *impeachment process*, the Senate never got involved at all. The house roughly a 5-month process including 2 months of hearings in which they considered some evidence from the Senate committee, as well as developed or collected some of their own evidence.

The takeaway here is that the House impeachment process isn't just a vote. The House has broad authority to hold its own hearings and appoint its own select investigative committees (as they did on Iran-Contra).
Thank you for the clarification and patience with my confusion.

I was 15 in early 1973 when the Senate hearings began. I paid attention but didn't grasp the finer points of Senate and/or House committees as regards who was doing what. I just remembered Senate hearings on impeachment.

It's not like we have a broad body of impeachment proceedings from which to draw experience. There's Watergate, and there's Whitewater. Each matter was handled in its own way. Neither is particularly instructive for what we're dealing with today.

I have been trying to puzzle out why Pelosi has chosen what appears to be an unpopular track. My best guess: She does not want to cede the ground of impeachment to the Senate, where they can hold competing "impeachment" hearings while she simultaneously conducts "oversight" hearings. Once she loses control of the process, there is no coming back from her choice.

I am positive McConnell has some nasty trick up his sleeve to circumvent an honest impeachment/removal process. I suspect Pelosi is aware he does, too. And perhaps that explains her choices.

I wanted Trump impeached on the day he walked into the Oval Office because I believe he was already in violation of his oath of office. But I think I understand why Pelosi wishes to do it as she is doing.

So long as there is ultimately a vote to impeach, I'm ok with waiting longer and having as many hearings in the House as can be stuffed into the available time. I don't care what they call those hearings.
  #283  
Old 04-26-2019, 06:04 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I am positive McConnell has some nasty trick up his sleeve to circumvent an honest impeachment/removal process. I suspect Pelosi is aware he does, too. And perhaps that explains her choices.
On this we agree. There are the rules, and then there are the other rules. But rules are rules.

Quote:
So long as there is ultimately a vote to impeach, I'm ok with waiting longer and having as many hearings in the House as can be stuffed into the available time. I don't care what they call those hearings.
Yeah, right now what I'm thinking is an HJC select committee on the comprehensive misdeeds of the President, to include collusion, emoluments, and ongoing foreign influence, followed by impeachment hearings, followed by an impeachment vote.

And then... McConnell could simply decline to deliberate on the articles, but I don't think he'd go that far. It would go to trial, which of course he'd sabotage and sandbag. Odds are he'd secure an acquittal, though I don't think that's a slam-dunk. But in this entire process, we'd see more evidence of Trump's criminality, and of the GOP complicity in abetting the same. This would enter into electoral calculations in 2020. Some would think the Republicans would be better off trying 2020 with a relatively unscathed Pence.

I don't know. There are too many variables to reckon with. But I feel like the scenario I laid out above is the Democrats' only chance of achieving some accountability and control and sanity over the executive branch.
  #284  
Old 04-26-2019, 06:13 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by poster View Post
If there really is stuff in there, it seems this is the time to strike...no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by poster View Post
Even though the Senate almost certainly won't convict, we should still impeach. The fact that they won't do the right thing is no excuse for us to not do the right thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poster View Post
Hearings shouldn't take but a week (I know it will take much longer, but fuck him. Have a vote in the morning, impeach the stupid fuck and get back to business)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Many? Who has claimed there must be a vote as soon as possible without accompanying hearings and investigations? Can you name one?
I could. I chose a few posts from the first 20 of this long thread, expression the 'impeach now, so what about hearings' idea. But I removed the names, as the point isn't to call anyone out. (Well, my point isn't, anyway.)

Have some of those people come around to the idea that 'extensive hearings should be held FIRST, then talk about impeachment'...? Yes, they have.

As of today, there's still a lot of pressure all over social media for House members to IMPEACH NOW and hearings be damned. I continue to believe that's a mistake.



Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
McConnell has the power to decide whether to change the Senate rules to have the trial at all. He could do that, and it would cost Republicans mightily. Once the trial starts, it's really not his ballgame anymore.
You're just wrong about this. McConnell is the decision-maker; Roberts would merely be a non-voting presiding officer. Why not do some reading to educate yourself?

Here's an official 1986 govinfo document, that shows how wrong you are about the idea that the Chief Justice will be deciding how the "ballgame" is organized, conducted, and carried out:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...C-99sdoc33.htm

Also of interest: a scholarly work from 1999 (relating to Bill Clinton's trial, of course):

https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra...74&context=hlr


It would be a good idea for you to get some knowledge under your belt.
  #285  
Old 04-26-2019, 06:17 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Here's an official 1986 govinfo document, that shows how wrong you are about the idea that the Chief Justice will be deciding how the "ballgame" is organized, conducted, and carried out:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...C-99sdoc33.htm
It so happens that your document consists of the senate rules, which is the same thing that I posted, which doesn't support anything you're saying.


Quote:
Also of interest: a scholarly work
You didn't read this and you aren't characterizing how it supports your position. If you have an argument please make it.
  #286  
Old 04-26-2019, 06:19 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
It's nice that you believe that, but Article 1 Section 3 of the US Constitution says you're wrong. When the Senate takes up articles of impeachment, it is an adversarial trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Not a one-sided softball hearing controlled by Mitch McConnell. Democrats will be represented by their impeachment managers who will be hitting very hard.

Now granted... it does end up effectively being a jury trial by a partial jury. But not many Republicans are going to feel comfortable sitting there getting hammered on national TV and responding with weak softballs.


We agree that acquittal is possible (though I'm not as convinced it will be a cakewalk). But the thing we really can't predict is how the landscape will be shifted by unfiltered exposure of Trump's shenanigans by House investigations, hearings, and the Senate trial. It will surely bring out a ton of damaging information even if he gets acquitted, but I think you may underestimate how positions can shift as this information comes out.


It would be helpful if you'd talk about the actual process instead of what you imagine it is. It's on Wikipedia.
Here's the actual process: Mitch McConnell is a brutal partisan, and it's his senate - his alone. There will be no trial. None. He won't have it.
  #287  
Old 04-26-2019, 06:19 PM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
But I think I understand why Pelosi wishes to do it as she is doing.

So long as there is ultimately a vote to impeach, I'm ok with waiting longer and having as many hearings in the House as can be stuffed into the available time. I don't care what they call those hearings.
She'll figure out how to land the plane, lol.
  #288  
Old 04-26-2019, 06:23 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
She'll figure out how to land the plane, lol.
God. Like we needed one... more... traitor in Mueller's investigation. I'm still swallowing my gorge over that one.
  #289  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:01 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
I could. I chose a few posts from the first 20 of this long thread, expression the 'impeach now, so what about hearings' idea. But I removed the names, as the point isn't to call anyone out. (Well, my point isn't, anyway.)

Have some of those people come around to the idea that 'extensive hearings should be held FIRST, then talk about impeachment'...? Yes, they have.

As of today, there's still a lot of pressure all over social media for House members to IMPEACH NOW and hearings be damned. I continue to believe that's a mistake.
...for fucks sakes. "IMPEACH NOW" does not mean "hearings be damned." Hearings are part of the process. Calling for impeachment means calling for hearings. "IMPEACH NOW" does not mean "this vote MUST take place as soon as possible". Even the framing "IMPEACH NOW" is a gross mischaracterization of the position held by people like Warren, AOC and co. You cited only a single poster, not many posters, who fit the characterization of your statement, and that person was clearly being hyperbolic.

You are hearing one thing but imagining another.

Quote:
It would be a good idea for you to get some knowledge under your belt.
Says the person who only realised how impeachment works a couple of days ago.
  #290  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:02 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
It so happens that your document consists of the senate rules, which is the same thing that I posted, which doesn't support anything you're saying.
If you were to read it, you'd find that it does.



Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
You didn't read this
Wrong again.

It's fascinating to see the 'anti-impeachment' argument from someone who clearly feels that the entire question of impeachment is inappropriate in the case of the particular president being accused of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Those trying to argue that Trump is totally innocent of same, do not remotely have grounds for their position comparable to the grounds detailed by the Hofstra Law Review author (Michael J. Gerhardt).

Gerhardt concentrated much of his argument on the (in his view) overreaching powers granted the Independent Counsel. As has often been remarked in recent months, the demise of the I.C. Act that occurred as a result of a widespread alarm about those powers, had the unfortunate effect of leaving Mueller's investigation overly vulnerable to interference.

The most telling portion of that article for the question of your misconception about how the trial would work,

Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
McConnell has the power to decide whether to change the Senate rules to have the trial at all. ... Once the trial starts, it's really not his ballgame anymore.
...occurs in part III, "THE POSSIBLE LESSONS OF PRESIDENT CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT AND ACQUITTAL" (all-caps in the article; bolding in previous quote mine.)

Look at the discussion of the question of Senators voting on a 'finding of fact' that begins about page 378 (there is some useful information on 'censure' as a tool beginning two pages earlier). In the recounting of how and why and who was deciding on such a vote, there is no mention of Rhenquist. Why not?

If he was---as you claim---in charge, shouldn't the account detail his decisions and rulings on these trial matters? According to you, once the trial starts, it's not the Senate Majority Leader's ballgame anymore. Or as you wrote earlier:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible
... When the Senate takes up articles of impeachment, it is an adversarial trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Not a one-sided softball hearing controlled by Mitch McConnell. ...
Again, this fantasy of yours, that Roberts, not McConnell, would be the decision-maker, is simply wrong.
  #291  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:10 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...for fucks sakes. "IMPEACH NOW" does not mean "hearings be damned." Hearings are part of the process. Calling for impeachment means calling for hearings. "IMPEACH NOW" does not mean "this vote MUST take place as soon as possible". Even the framing "IMPEACH NOW" is a gross mischaracterization of the position held by people like Warren, AOC and co. You cited only a single poster, not many posters, who fit the characterization of your statement, and that person was clearly being hyperbolic.
You are hearing one thing but imagining another.
Says the person who only realised how impeachment works a couple of days ago.
Your post demonstrates the weakness of your position.

An improvement would surely result if you would read the posts to which you reply. For example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
...Have some of those people come around to the idea that 'extensive hearings should be held FIRST, then talk about impeachment'...? Yes, they have.

As of today, there's still a lot of pressure all over social media for House members to IMPEACH NOW and hearings be damned. I continue to believe that's a mistake.
Your claims are contradicted by this post, which apparently you didn't read. Or perhaps 'understanding' was your roadblock. In any case, you are making no headway with putting across your side of the argument.
  #292  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:10 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Again, this fantasy of yours, that Roberts, not McConnell, would be the decision-maker, is simply wrong.
...from your first cite:

Quote:
Originally Posted by cite 1
When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
From your second cite:

Quote:
Originally Posted by cite 2
The Constitution also says that when a President is impeached, the
Chief Justice shall preside over his trial in the Senate.
Are you quibbling over the distinction between "preside" and "decision-maker?"
  #293  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:21 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Your post demonstrates the weakness of your position.
...your inability to post a proper rebuttal demonstrates the weakness of your position. For example:

Quote:
An improvement would surely result if you would read the posts to which you reply. For example:

Your claims are contradicted by this post, which apparently you didn't read. Or perhaps 'understanding' was your roadblock. In any case, you are making no headway with putting across your side of the argument.
That post has nothing to do with your original claim which you were asked for evidence for. That original claim was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
But many have claimed that this vote MUST take place as soon as possible, otherwise terrible consequences will ensue.
This isn't even broadly accurate. Its a strawman piled on top of strawmen because you can't be bothered debating what people actually say.

And this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Have some of those people come around to the idea that 'extensive hearings should be held FIRST, then talk about impeachment'...? Yes, they have.
Except people haven't "come around to this." Unlike you people advocating for impeachment actually know what impeachment means. Unlike you they know that extensive hearings are held first.

Quote:
As of today, there's still a lot of pressure all over social media for House members to IMPEACH NOW and hearings be damned. I continue to believe that's a mistake.
I'll say it again: you are mischaracterizing what people like Warren and AOC are arguing.

My claim is not contradicted by that post. The first part of that post was a "bait and switch", the second part of that post was what my post was directly rebutting. Its absurd to claim the rebuttal contradicted the post it was addressing, even if you disagree with the rebuttal.
  #294  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:22 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
The most telling portion of that article for the question of your misconception about how the trial would work,
... is a portion that you're not going to quote or cite, just like the rest of the text you're alluding to, because you know you're wrong and you need to bang the table. Go ahead, bang on.
  #295  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:27 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Even though the Senate almost certainly won't convict, we should still impeach. The fact that they won't do the right thing is no excuse for us to not do the right thing.
Good point.

It can, has been, and will continue to be argued that "the right thing" is to annihilate the Republican Party, and that the "wrong thing" is to take an ultimately futile action that will result in a reinvigorated Republican Party.

The question seems to be "which of those two conditions will be advanced by impeachment?"
  #296  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:48 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
If you believe in Kendzior because you believe that "hearings are the best way of informing the people on what the White House has done" then why bother with an impeachment process? The House will be holding hearings on Trump every week from now until next November. All the information that even the most avid partisan (or swayable undecided) could ever want will come out.

It just won't be called impeachment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Impeachment gets Republicans to take a stand regarding the president in a way that hearings don't. I strongly suspect that some Republicans--Romney, I'm looking at you--will vote in favor of impeachment, and good for them.

Those that defend the president's behavior? Let them run on that record.

Bear in mind that the revelations aren't over. There are over a dozen cases referred to other jurisdictions. If the ball gets rolling now, it's gonna pick up more shit along the way.
Well, you have a point, if the Pubbies can be relied upon to keep their traps shut and not step in front of the nearest microphone to "rebut" anything that comes out of the hearings. whatever dribbles out of their cakeholes in those "rebuttals" will be useful fodder in the campaigns against them.

Do YOU think they'll be able to keep their traps shut? 'cos I don't.
  #297  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:52 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I believe in Kendzior because, like her, I believe that the "GOP has been hijacked by a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government". I also believe that there are very few "good options" available. I think that if in her opinion impeachment is the best option available out of all the bad options then it would be silly to simply dismiss her opinion out of hand. I was on the side of "not impeach" until very recently. But I kept an open mind.
Problem is, impeachment is a tool that is effective when the target actually IS a government. When it's a transnational crime syndicate? Not so much.
  #298  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:53 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Problem is, impeachment is a tool that is effective when the target actually IS a government. When it's a transnational crime syndicate? Not so much.
...why not?
  #299  
Old 04-26-2019, 07:58 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oly View Post
You are right: No one will pay much attention to congressional hearings. An impeachment trial is a congressional hearing, so no one will pay much attention to it either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Nice conflation, but no. In 1974, people paid attention to the House Judiciary Committee debates over impeachment. And back then, people were no more likely to pay attention to normal House hearings than they are today.
Oh? How many channels could your TV tune into in 1974?
  #300  
Old 04-26-2019, 08:00 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOJA View Post
Depends, can we also annul his fake marriage to Melanie and send that golddigger back home?
Probably not; she has an anchor baby now...


Last edited by kaylasdad99; 04-26-2019 at 08:01 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017