- 29,963
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
The Trump Impeachment Thread
- Thread starter Dotini
- 2,103 comments
- 87,001 views
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Of course we ought to consider the milieu under which this case of impeachment is proceeding. The cold facts of statutory law, the foreign relations strategy and history, all of it. But more pertinent than any of that is politics, which @Danoff so wisely outlined.
Yes, it's enough to make the blood boil in anyone putting interesting objective facts above more primary political facts. The people making history are the ruling Democrats in the House, and the ruling Republicans in the Senate. The looming election of 2020 will affect the House most. Subjective hopes and fears matter a lot. When faced with a battle for the control of the government of the USA - fairly high stakes - the people involved are focused on winning the next election.
He makes some good points, but one on which he may be wrong are the 31 vulnerable House Democrats seeking reelection in Trump-carried districts. To them, more important than the general election is the primary in which they are vulnerable only to Democratic candidates farther to the left!
The "Beware the military-industrial complex" speech by Eisenhower is indeed an historical one. But he was cowardly not to do anything about during his term. Hence, everyone but lonely idealists have ignored it since then.
Yes, it's enough to make the blood boil in anyone putting interesting objective facts above more primary political facts. The people making history are the ruling Democrats in the House, and the ruling Republicans in the Senate. The looming election of 2020 will affect the House most. Subjective hopes and fears matter a lot. When faced with a battle for the control of the government of the USA - fairly high stakes - the people involved are focused on winning the next election.
He makes some good points, but one on which he may be wrong are the 31 vulnerable House Democrats seeking reelection in Trump-carried districts. To them, more important than the general election is the primary in which they are vulnerable only to Democratic candidates farther to the left!
The "Beware the military-industrial complex" speech by Eisenhower is indeed an historical one. But he was cowardly not to do anything about during his term. Hence, everyone but lonely idealists have ignored it since then.
Groundfish
(Banned)
- 4,363
- United States
Regardless what political stance anyone chooses to take on an Internet forum, calling Ike a coward is mind boggling.
I mean it doesn’t matter where ones allegiances lie, if you are acting on the assumption that corruption is not rampant in Congress than perhaps my initial post would not make sense to you.
DesertPenguin
(Banned)
- 10,691
- Long Island, New York
- DesertPenguin_
Is it over yet? Can we all go home now? 
Groundfish
(Banned)
- 4,363
- United States
Is it over yet? Can we all go home now?
Right now I can still get crb. Just gotta manage the gap and bring it home ftw!
Same as it ever was same as it ever was
- 5,051
- Netherlands
? Please explain!
Danoff
Premium
- 34,014
- Mile High City
You're misunderstanding me. I said that it was being driven by politics, not that politics is more pertinent. It is being driven by less pertinent facts.
Happens in the corporate world too. Often referred to as a "bio break" or just an opportunity to get some coffee, deal with any late-breaking emails, and get back to the conference.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Nothing has happened yet. Impeachment without conviction is a giant loss for the Democrats and a political triumph for Trump, probably assuring his reelection. The exact same thing accrued for Clinton. You see, the framers of the Constitution intended impeachment to be bipartisan. That's why they made it a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The American voters are not stupid. They intuitively know when it is partisan politics at play, and when it is criminal behavior at work such as the case of Nixon.Is it over yet? Can we all go home now?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,014
- Mile High City
I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. But regardless, it is their job to impeach him in this circumstance.
I have no idea how you reach this conclusion. Clinton did not run for re-election following impeachment.
You've seen all of the reasons why Trump's behavior is criminal. It's pure partisanship that makes you say otherwise. You have no refutation of the facts, no legal analysis to support your conclusion, no possible logical explanation for it. All you have, and all you have done, is plug your ears and say "politics are important" and "the process must be respected". You're then trying to conflate this with the notion that there is some sort of actual legal defense here, and that the "other side" is the one being unreasonable.
So please, if you're going to take this position, support it with some shred of actual factual evidence. You, like the rest of the Trump defense, cannot.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
What corruption exactly?
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Your problem is that your noggin is stuck in the clouds of morality and rectitude, while your feet are disconnected from the ground of political reality. You, like Democrats, would like to think Trump did something illegal. But that remains to be established. The truth is that Democrats are stuck in a repeating nightmare, a fever dream of the 2016 election, an horrific trauma which they must but can never exorcise. Partisan impeachment on faulty grounds is only a short-term panacea to obtain psychotherapeutic relief, yet it will only deepen their immiseration when it fails as it must, and they are still stuck in their nightmare, soon to be twice as bad in 2020. Reality will set in when the Supreme Court is balanced 7-2 on the conservative side.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,014
- Mile High City
Actually you're assuming that because you seem to have a notion that one cannot understand morality and "rectitude" without also understanding pragmatism. You're wrong, those can both be handled by the same person.
No, honestly and truthfully, I would not. I would prefer that Trump was completely above board. But the facts are clear.
No, it does not. It has been established. What remains to be established is whether
I have no idea what this has to do with me, or why you're saying it.
The only faulty grounds would be to fail to remove him from office. Again, if you have an actual case based on facts, make it. I note that you repeatedly cannot.
...and none of this has to do with me, or anything particularly relevant.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Why are you still looking at the whole thing politically? What trump did IS illegal. It doesnt need to be established, because there are multiple witnesses, transcript of the call. There is no doubt what he did was illegal. The only question really left is, if it is impeachable.
If you just look at the facts and ignore all the noise from both the democrats and republicans you are left with a crime.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,014
- Mile High City
It seems that I keep asking you to provide a shred of evidence to support your position, and you continue to dodge that request. Because you have none. All you have is some notion that partisan republicans in the senate can confer some level of authority or credibility to the result. Yet you have already impugned their motives as being primarily political.
Absurd.
You mean congress? Probably because the circumstances were different. "What about" doesn't help you here. At the very worst, you'd just be bolstering the notion that Obama should have been impeached (I find this terribly unlikely). It wouldn't change whether Trump should be.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I don't know what sort of legal society you dwell in. In the US, if a man is charged with a crime, he has a right to a trial to determine the legality of his actions, if any. Perhaps you think that if a man shoots another in the street and it is seen by many and recorded on video, that there is no need for a trial because there are multiple witnesses and a perfect transcript? There is no need for guilt to be established in law? Well, friend, you are very wrong. We are a nation of laws, not men. Here men are tried before conviction, and convicted before sentencing. We go by our laws, not what men are yelling in the streets or on the forums.
But what we are talking about here is something very different. This is a political impeachment, not a case in common law. The process is defined in our highest law, the Constitution. Here, as in the common law, men are not guilty until tried and convicted.
- 19,675
- Alabamamania
They weren't asking their leader(s) to investigate a political rival, and they went through the proper channels of Congress.
It's cute when his followers want a one-man show instead all the checks-and-balances of a functioning administration, and then bails on the responsibilities. Just tweet about it instead of holding an actual press conference and answering questions from those that may disagree with you. He's basically admitted to doing everything he's accused of, and every bit of right-wing press is out of rational excuses because he's lied so many damn times already that the counter reset itself to zero.
I get it, the leftist press has also run out of ways to color the situation, but the some of the bites emerging from the Fox den are laughable (it's boring! It's not exciting! Not sexy enough!), so now I have a reason to humor my day.
Is this a Hail Mary attempt by the Dems? Yes. But it's amazing how far it's gotten, only made easier by this alliance of crooks in power that promised to drain the swamp and installed themselves as spineless jellyfish. And so many of them have either wound up in court or jailed, or departed the asylum, which shows this rodeo had far more clowns than steer.
Is it Infrastructure Week yet? I don't think the holiday decorations are enough of a distraction.
Last edited:
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Not for asking to investigating a domestic opponent. That is why Trump and co. are pushing hard that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election. They are trying to change the narrative after the crime.
What happened:
- Trump wanted an anouncement for an investigation on Hunter Biden initially through his personal lawyer
- the aid was withheld
- Trump asked a favor from Zelensky (investigate H. Biden) on the phone
- The whistleblower made a complaint
- trump made the "no quid pro quo"call (conveniently after the original complaint)
- aid is released
- the whitehouse does not comply with any subpoenas to testify
- the whitehouse will not participate with the hearings
The main crime: investigation into Hunter Biden for the release of aid
This above above are all facts. Both parties now this and have somewhat stopped arguing if these are facts.
However the Trump team are changing the narrative to: Hunter Biden was part of a cover up to hide the fact that Ukraine meddled with the 2016 election. This would make the quid pro quo foreign policy and perhaps not impeachable.
The senate ultimately have to judge if Trump wanted Hunter Biden investigated to discredit his political opponent or to persue a debunked conspiracy theory. The rest is all just smoke.
If he is not impeached. That would mean future democrat/republican president are allowed to withhold funds to any country he/she wishes to look for dirt or spread conspiracy theories to discredit political opponents domestically.
I agree with due process. But what if that man that shot another refuses to attend the trial? Refuses to comply with subpoenas and refuses to participate in any way. Should he then just go free and anounced as innocent? Ofcourse not.
You made the correct point though. He should defend himself in a trial or at hearings. Either himself or attorneys. But refusal to defend yourself, in my opinion is an admission of guilt.
Last edited:
- 284
- United States
Danoff
Premium
- 34,014
- Mile High City
Still waiting for any possible factual reason. You can be guilty of a crime and not found guilty by the courts. We err on the side of letting guilty people get away with it here in the US.
Edit:
Also, and I don't know how many times I need to say this... this is not about incarcerating or executing Donald Trump. This is about removing him from office.
DesertPenguin
(Banned)
- 10,691
- Long Island, New York
- DesertPenguin_
