***Official Impeachment Proceedings***

doubleup

Legend (inyourownmind)
Nov 18, 2019
173
41
28
"Guilty beyond presumptive doubt.." Including obstruction of justice? Or, if Trump testifies, perjury/lying under oath?

What do you think the charges will be once the formal Impeachment Hearings get underway?
 

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
16,018
104
63
Oceanside,CA
"Guilty beyond presumptive doubt.." Including obstruction of justice? Or, if Trump testifies, perjury/lying under oath?

What do you think the charges will be once the formal Impeachment Hearings get underway?
Congress does not have the judicial powers to prosecute. It needs to be determined that a crime was committed first. So far, all testimonies are weak hearsay at best. While parties involved on other side of the so called "bribery" or "extortion" have not come forward claiming they were actual complainants or plaintiffs.

Dems (Schiff and co) have been claiming "obstruction of justice" since Trump set foot in office Jan 2017. And none have stuck since. Problem Dems are creating with all this "boy who cried wolf" crap, is that they're dumbing down the whole impeachment process into being sour grapes on steroids.

And yes, put it to a vote already, if they think it truly is "This Time For Sure!!", and kick it to the Senate for the final nail in the Trump coffin.


At this point Rocky is the DNC/Dems of 2016 in the previous admin upper echelon. And Schiff is Bullwinkle.
 
Last edited:

utoma

Nep status
Apr 19, 2019
685
137
43
Schiff's Inquiry was into Ukraine, Nadler will be into obstruction.

Can I please direct everyone's attention to Mueller's report Volume II, Section II called "Factual Results of the Obstruction Investigation", subsection E titled "The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel"

or Section F "The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation"

or Section H "The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take over the Investigation".


For you Trumpers: Just because you don't want to believe the factual evidence, does not mean it is not there.

It is there, and it is Republicans who are doing a disservice to our country by siding with their corrupt party then hold the president accountable.
 

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
32,656
463
83
Vagina Point
Motivated reasoning influences how you look at evidence.

The mechanism for this is the framing effect's effect on the framer.

Some people believe in an anthropomorphic sky god based on pretty shaky evidence.

The main driver is motivation. What do you want to be true?

The test is to flip it.

Would the GOP being saying there is no case if this was Hillary?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: afoaf

doubleup

Legend (inyourownmind)
Nov 18, 2019
173
41
28
The nervous system loves to spare resources in the pursuit of safety.

One of the systems that get short changed is the cognitive system.
Do you think there's a spectrum between neuro-plasticity and neuro-fossilization where baseline incuriosity leads to over reliance on the DMN (default mode network) and that incessant tendentious messaging leads to the latter? A 'vicious circle', perhaps, of mis-apprehension through overly robust signal filtration?
 

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
32,656
463
83
Vagina Point
Do you think there's a spectrum between neuro-plasticity and neuro-fossilization where baseline incuriosity leads to over reliance on the DMN (default mode network) and that incessant tendentious messaging leads to the latter? A 'vicious circle', perhaps, of mis-apprehension through overly robust signal filtration?
Yes. :poop:

*See Gross fat Stupid Dad.
 

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
32,656
463
83
Vagina Point
Do you think there's a spectrum between neuro-plasticity and neuro-fossilization where baseline incuriosity leads to over reliance on the DMN (default mode network) and that incessant tendentious messaging leads to the latter? A 'vicious circle', perhaps, of mis-apprehension through overly robust signal filtration?
But what is driving that baseline incuriosity?

I say the NS's aversion to loss, the impulse to spare resources to use in the pursuit of safety.

The NS's desire for safety is what drives everything else.

And the problem is that the NS is fallible.

It can play it too safe.
 

doubleup

Legend (inyourownmind)
Nov 18, 2019
173
41
28
But what is driving that baseline incuriosity?

I say the NS's aversion to loss, the impulse to spare resources to use in the pursuit of safety.

The NS's desire for safety is what drives everything else.

And the problem is that the NS is fallible.

It can play it too safe.
Incuriosity cannot be entirely attributed to nurture, I believe nature also contributes. Absent a traumatic episode, it is our species' predilection to seek stimulus. Read 'novelty' or 'challenge' or perhaps 'threat' for the operative form in this instance. An over attachment to 'safety' (or fear of loss) and a rejection of novelty/challenge isn't just sloth, it's a variety of birth defect.
Given a sufficiently broad definition of trauma, however, I get the sense that a predisposition to sloth puts one at greater risk from forceful and systematic indoctrination, even if the subject submits to it voluntarily.
There may be a remedy, though it may involve kissing a frog.
 

Phi1

Miki Dora status
May 21, 2002
3,787
92
48
Hell Cajon, Ca
Guilty beyond presumptive doubt is the new DNC 2020 campaign slogan.

Except this isn't a criminal trial, as many have pointed out this is part of the checks and balances outlined in the constitution. Bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors are grounds for removal from office.

Things like holding up aid generally have a paper trail. People investigating could easily assemble a timeline and chain of command from that information. Yet that information isn't being released. The "first hand" witnesses are being told not to testify.

Finally, if Ukraine was such a cesspool of corruption, why would you want Ukraine investigating American citizens? There are no extradition treaties with Ukraine. If corruption was so rampant, why only focus on Burisma? Would you trust the country you (falsely) accused of interfering in the 2016 elections to find proof of such? You know, the one you were just saying was corrupt. (I don't mean "you" I mean the administration)
 
  • Like
Reactions: doubleup