The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Groundfish]

What's the relevance of focusing on the word "State"? I believe the relevant words are as I quote below

Well, there’s the State ie the whole country, or a state which would be just one. I’m not a lawyer but it looked to me as if the original post was referring to one state enacting a tariff on another, like I said I’m not a lawyer.

Anyways my bad for being OT.

 

[Keef]

Well, there’s the State ie the whole country, or a state which would be just one. I’m not a lawyer but it looked to me as if the original post was referring to one state enacting a tariff on another, like I said I’m not a lawyer.

Anyways my bad for being OT.

As read in the Constitution, the word "State" refers to the fifty states.

 

[Dotini]

There are 10 or so Dems who are against impeachment. Another much larger group insists the charges don't go far enough.
To me, the charges seem rather dilute and wishy-washy. We shall see if they are not firmed up before the final articles are issued.


Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., questions CDC Principal Deputy Secretary Dr. Anne Schuchat as she speaks before a House Oversight subcommittee hearing on lung disease and e-cigarettes on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

With House Democrats days away from voting on articles of impeachment, at least one progressive group that has spent months advocating for that outcome is disappointed.

CREDO Action, one of a number of progressive groups lobbying for impeachment since the summer, accused Democratic leaders of leaving too much out of the articles of impeachment.

“It’s beyond overdue for House Democrats to introduce articles of impeachment, but failing to include articles addressing most of the high crimes and misdemeanors Trump has committed is a dangerous abdication of responsibility,” CREDO Action co-director Heidi Hess said in a statement.

“But by not including Trump’s bigotry, corruption, and self-enrichment, Democrats are telling the communities that Trump has terrorized that they are on their own,” she added.

Progressive Michigan freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who went viral for telling supporters Democrats would “impeachment the mother******,” tweeted on Tuesday her thoughts on the scope of impeachment.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/10/progressive-groups-unhappy-articles-impeachment/

 

[Danoff]

To me, the charges seem rather dilute and wishy-washy.

Yea, obstruction and bribery, I mean... how nebulous can you get amirite?

 

[Groundfish]

Hmm obstruction of politically motivated Congress and abuse of power by inquiring about corruption. Sounds about right!
Focus groups determined the articles, maybe.
For me it’s a Fugazi, and as I said before it’s naive to think there’s any substance here.

As read in the Constitution, the word "State" refers to the fifty states

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import-Export_Clause

 

[Keef]

Hmm obstruction of politically motivated Congress and abuse of power by inquiring about corruption. Sounds about right!



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import-Export_Clause

Yes. The first sentence there defines what I said. Another example is in the Tenth Amendment, where States refers to the states and United States refers to the federal government.

 

[Danoff]

Hmm obstruction of politically motivated Congress and abuse of power by inquiring about corruption. Sounds about right!

Obstruction of justice is literally what Clinton and Nixon were impeached for. The abuse of power is for bribing a foreign country (and is enumerated in the constitution as impeachable). Try again.

Edit:

Just as an aside, Nixon also had abuse of power brought against him (and was impeached for it too).

 

[Dotini]

I think @Biggles was right when he assessed the situation as a postmodern conflict of differing realities battling out politics in the literal swamp of Washington, DC.

Possible tests of true or at least higher reality will be to see (A) Trump is removed from office, (B) Democrats take the White House in 2020. and (C) Democratic Party numbers increase in the House and Senate in the 2020 election.

@Danoff Nixon was never impeached. He resigned from office before the full House could vote.

 

[Groundfish]

Yes. The first sentence there defines what I said. Another example is in the Tenth Amendment, where States refers to the states and United States refers to the federal government.

Exactly, and just as I initially supposed it’s referring to them.
Which is why the previous assertion that was made about the Presidents tariffs being unconstitutional was incorrect.
Which is why my response was quite correct.
I’m not a lawyer, but I actually did interpret that correctly.
It may be only one small example, one grain of sand in a Sahara of misinformation regarding the President, but, at least that one point is now clear.
The propoganda war being waged to create hatred for the President has brainwashed many. There’s so many quotes and postings online, calling him names and talking about ALL his wrongdoings. When it comes down to it most people when pressed end up like well my cousin overheard a phone call and...Gimme a break with the lack of specifics. The automatons simply know they are supposed to hate so they do and that’s just not good for society. Hate and division is awful.
They have been investigating him a long long time at taxpayer expense.
How ironic it is that asking why a drug problems unqualified son of Biden is on the board of an energy company when his daddy has control of US tax dollars being funneled over there can get the President of the USA an article of Impeachment.
That’s circumstantial enough evidence for me to have a look.
Kinda irritates me when these politicians take my money and line the pockets of their friends and family under the guise of foreign aid.
It is even more irritating when they try to push ‘trade agreements’ that are nothing more than selling out what’s left of America to foreign interests.
I guess it’s all about perception isn’t it?
What lens do we choose to view reality through?
For me that’s exactly it. I am not a big fan of politicians. I am not a big fan of any political party’s platform. I am not a big fan of Presidents Trumps use of Twitter, or past, but, you have to respect the guy for trying to do what he believes is right for the USA amidst all the opposition.
He’s like a rebel in the sense he’s not a career politician, and to my way of thinking that sets him a level above those that are.
Anyways I have work to do...

 

[Joey D]

The House, in its wisdom, has drafted articles of impeachment on two charges - "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress".
https://apnews.com/bb81279725b6f810d5792502254f2f88

Since neither of these appear in the Constitution as impeachable crimes,

Obstruction is literally a misdemeanor at the very least (a felony at its worst). So going by high crimes and misdemeanors, which is in the Constitution, I think it fits.

Which is why the previous assertion that was made about the Presidents tariffs being unconstitutional was incorrect.

I'm not sure how it's incorrect when the Constitution clearly spells out only Congress has the power to levy tariffs. With Trump enacting the tariffs, he's doing something unconstitutional. And no, I'm not picking on Trump here either. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Regan, etc. all did things unconstitutional.

It's not misinformation nor is it propaganda. It's something that actually happened (or rather is happening) and there's a clear line in the Constitution that says enacting tariffs is illegal for anyone other than Congress.

There's a good reason that the power of tariffs are with Congress too, mostly because they're awful to the economy, trade, and foreign relations. You need a really good justification in enact tariffs and because some blue-collar workers are losing their jobs isn't one of the justifications. Really the only thing that probably could be justified is war and even that's shaky. By the way, you never did answer me what in the world French cheese and champagne have to do with national security (or anyone keeping their job for that matter since champagne only comes from France and nowhere else in the world.)

 

[Drifter1171]

0.0

 

[Groundfish]

There's a good reason that the power of tariffs are with Congress too, mostly because they're awful to the economy, trade, and foreign relations

Well, that is opposite the ideas of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.
Given how incapable the muppets and puppets of Congress are I am happy that the President can protect national security.

Notifications off.

 

[Keef]

Exactly, and just as I initially supposed it’s referring to them.
Which is why the previous assertion that was made about the Presidents tariffs being unconstitutional was incorrect.
Which is why my response was quite correct.
I’m not a lawyer, but I actually did interpret that correctly.

Not to be disrespectful but this is the most inane twisting of reality that's happened today. That's a lot to say with Trump in office.

You literally just said that you believed the word "State" to mean "The United States of America", i.e. the country.:

Well, there’s the State ie the whole country, or a state which would be just one. I’m not a lawyer but it looked to me as if the original post was referring to one state enacting a tariff on another, like I said I’m not a lawyer.

Anyways my bad for being OT.

In this post you're asserting that "State" means the country, and "state" means a state within the country. But you also assert that you thought "State" meant a state within the country. What in the absolute fudge am I reading? I am beyond confused (which is funny because you also posted this):

There’s so many ridiculous laws, and very very intentionally confusing language that can be interpreted many different ways, and that’s all by design.

Let's start with the basics. Why did you ask this?:

State? I’m not a lawyer, sorry.

The context before you asked that question was that @Joey D said the President violated the constitution with his tariffs. Then, you refuted that he violated the constitution and insisted Congress is filled with lawyers who would have caught the violation if it existed. Joey refuted that, suggesting that congressmen did not react appropriately to the violation and instead called it fake news. Joey said all you have to do is read the laws. (Now, up to this point you seem to believe it's not a constitutional violation while Joey does.) Then, you suggested that the laws are written to be confusing on purpose. So to refute that, Joey quoted the actual article in the Constitution which very clearly explains why tariffs are Congress's responsibility and thus the President violated the constitution, establishing that it's not confusing and all you need to do is read the material you're talking about. And that is when you choose to quote the word "State".

Now, there seems to be a lot of out-of-context quoting going on here lately which is why I'm so confused. When you ask the question, "State?" I cannot tell whether you're asking what "State" means, or whether you only read the word "State" and are now refuting the constitutional violation claim because you believe that passage of the Constitution only refers to states.

Then, after all that, you definitely suggest that you believe that passage of the Constitution is referring to states, totally ignoring the rest of the language of that passage, and insisting that you were correct.

Do you see why I'm confused? You said laws are deliberately confusing, but you are being deliberately confusing. You took one word, "State", and gave it two meanings, which then allowed you to refute your own argument by simply using a different definition. And now you think you're correct when you're not, all because you didn't read the rest of the passage.

Remember those word problems in math class? Pain in the ass, right? Don't forget to read the whole problem before you start doing math.

 

[Joey D]

Well, that is opposite the ideas of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.
Given how incapable the muppets and puppets of Congress are I am happy that the President can protect national security.

Notifications off.

George Washington also understood it wasn't the president's job to enact tariffs. But with the signing of the Tariff Act of 1789, there was justification. With no trade agreement and having just got out of a war, the US would've failed before it started. But even then, Congress signed off on it, like they typically should.

Still, even the greatest of men have bad ideas. As an example of this tariffs were one of the main sticking points in the Civil War and tariffs also more than likely caused the Great Depression.

And you still haven't answered why French cheese and champagne are a matter of national security. So what Trump's tariffs have to do with protecting the nation is something I don't even begin to understand. I guess you won't answer, but I know Opinion Forum Flybys are like Sand People. You'll be back and in greater numbers.

 

[Drifter1171]

Same reason you cant bring produce from another country into america

 

[Northstar]

Same reason you cant bring produce from another country into america

You should probably do some more research on that. Unlike cheese and champagne there are legitimate concerns with produce/plants, which is why most countries limit what can be brought in.

 

[Drifter1171]

You should probably do some more research on that. Unlike cheese and champagne there are legitimate concerns with produce/plants, which is why most countries limit what can be brought in.

Protecting domestic industries is a legitimate concern

 

[Northstar]

Protecting domestic industries is a legitimate concern

Nope, it actually has nothing to do with money. Foreign plants and produce can carry bacteria, pests or seeds that may be fairly harmless in their native ecological setting but can cause major issues in others. I suggest doing some research on invasive species and the impact they have had.

Anyways, back to the IIC...

 

[Drifter1171]

Nope, it actually has nothing to do with money. Foreign plants and produce can carry bacteria, pests, seeds, that may be fairly harmless in their native ecological setting but can cause major issues in others. I suggest doing some research on invasive species and the impact they have had.

Anyways, back to the IIC...

I was talking about your wine and cheese

 

[Northstar]

I was talking about your wine and cheese

And I was pointing out the produce example you gave is not the same reason.

Same reason you cant bring produce from another country into america

Unless you’re implying that crappy cheese causes ecological harm?

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff Nixon was never impeached. He resigned from office before the full House could vote.

I stand corrected. I mistook approval of articles of impeachment for a vote of impeachment. Nixon resigned after the judiciary committee approved articles of impeachment, and impeachment itself was a foregone conclusion, but before the house could vote on it. He apparently wasn't going to, but the tape of him surfaced and his votes in the senate evaporated.

Articles of impeachment for both obstruction and abuse of power were approved for Nixon.

 

[Drifter1171]

And I was pointing out the produce example you gave is not the same reason.



Unless you’re implying that crappy cheese causes ecological harm?

Im implying either one has the propensity to cause harm to America or Americans, thus falling under national security

 

[Joey D]

Protecting domestic industries is a legitimate concern

It's not possible to have an American champagne industry, so there's nothing to protect there. Also, many of the cheeses that come from France have no industry in the US either. With that in mind, I can't think of a legitimate reason or justification has for implementing his illegal tariffs on France.

 

[Drifter1171]

It's not possible to have an American champagne industry, so there's nothing to protect there. Also, many of the cheeses that come from France have no industry in the US either. With that in mind, I can't think of a legitimate reason or justification has for implementing his illegal tariffs on France.

The U.S. has too much cheese — 1.4 billion pounds of it to be exact. To get some of that cheese off the market, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has spent $47.1 million buying up roughly 22 million pounds of it since 2016, according to a USDA spokesperson.Feb 16, 2019

 

[Danoff]

The U.S. has too much cheese — 1.4 billion pounds of it to be exact. To get some of that cheese off the market, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has spent $47.1 million buying up roughly 22 million pounds of it since 2016, according to a USDA spokesperson.Feb 16, 2019

Sounds like trump (also sounds like trump's predecessors).

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Hey @Dotini How about adding a poll to the thread. Do you think Trump will be impeached?

 

[Drifter1171]

Sounds like trump (also sounds like trump's predecessors).

If we dont have a champagne industry and rely on imports why wouldnt you put a tax on it. Dudes a businessman, making an attempt at fixing our economy pinching pennies.

Sound likes a Bernie supporter, and so ya know im an independent "comrade"

Hey @Dotini How about adding a poll to the tread. Do you think Trump will be impeached?

Who cares it aint gonna change a thing our country is in the ******* and every one of these politicians are just making the hole deeper.

 

[Joey D]

The U.S. has too much cheese — 1.4 billion pounds of it to be exact. To get some of that cheese off the market, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has spent $47.1 million buying up roughly 22 million pounds of it since 2016, according to a USDA spokesperson.Feb 16, 2019

Sounds like the US dairy industry needs to quit making cheese, sell it cheaper, or find a new use for it. The US Department of Agriculture should spend exactly $0 buying products from farmers.

If we dont have a champagne industry and rely on imports why wouldnt you put a tax on it. Dudes a businessman, making an attempt at fixing our economy pinching pennies.

Sound likes a Bernie supporter, and so ya know im an independent "comrade"

You don't fix the economy with taxes, you fix it with free trade.

And calling @Danoff a Bernie supporter is amusing. The guy is probably the most Libertarian person I've ever seen...and this is coming from someone who's pretty Libertarian already.

 

[jjaisli]

The U.S. has too much cheese — 1.4 billion pounds of it to be exact. To get some of that cheese off the market, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has spent $47.1 million buying up roughly 22 million pounds of it since 2016, according to a USDA spokesperson.Feb 16, 2019

You're very off base with a lot of your assumptions.

1. The reason the U.S. has too much cheese is mainly due to American cheese exports to China falling almost 60% as a result of counter tariffs, a by product of Trump's trade war. It's not just the soybean farmers who are being hurt. It's more than that though. Americans are simply buying less 'processed' cheese, the normal staple of the american cheese and dairy industry and instead are buying more imported, natural cheeses.

2. If the American dairy industry senses a specific threat from foreign competition, there is a clearly defined process that's existed since before any of us were born, where they can apply for tariff protection to level the playing field. The department of commerce regularly investigates such claims and pending the result, congress can levy taxes in the form of import tariffs against an entire industry, a specific country, or even target a particular foreign manufacturer, if it feels foreign products are cutting into US market share and negatively impacting US manufacturers, and here's the key, doing so at prices which make US producers uncompetitive. Swiss cheeses, imported from Switzerland are unlikely to ever be hit because their prices are so high (often double their US produced equivalents) that they are not deemed to be a threat. It's similar, for example how expensive crystalware has a much lower duty rate than cheap dime store "fake" crystal which is mass produced but has a much higher duty rate--because US industry can't compete against glassware so cheap it's being imported at prices below their production cost in the US.

3. To further clarify, and much to the disdain of the French wine industry, Champagne, [If it's called Champagne on the label] can legitimately ONLY be produced in the Champagne area of France. (Same as "real" parmigiano cheese only produced in Parma). However, US Customs classifies Champagne not as a specific product but by it's common description, as a sparkling wine (sacré bleu), under HTSUS 2204.10.00.30 ~ 2204.10.00.75 at a duty rate of $0.198 per liter regardless of whether it's actual Dom Pérignon or some sweet German ****. Neither is killing Napa Valley in any event.

4. So no, putting an additional tariff on French cheese, champagne, and lets not forget handbags, has ZERO to do with national security. And it has nothing to do with protecting the US Dairy and cheese industry. Which is what import tariffs are legitimately designed to do. This was a section 301 "investigation" as punishment for France for their new digital service tax--a tax imposed on any foreign 'tech' companies that have an online presence and do business in France but effectively pay no taxes. In this case, it's not surprising that companies like Google or Facebook, suddenly jump on the Trump Train and stay silent because it's in their self interest to use this form of bogus political pressure. It's a practice which goes on, has gone on during previous administrations (see the banana war of the 90s) but those were acts of congress and no president ever had the audacity to suggest it [or ****ing bananas] was an issue of national security. It was, and should remain a trade dispute and should legally fall under the domain of Congress, as it was intended by our own laws. That the President is getting personally involved is once again showing a degree of overreach. I don't have a law degree so I won't comment if it's actually illegal. But it's certainly an abuse of power. One in a long line of them.

 

[TexRex]

Opinion Forum Flybys are like Sand People. You'll be back and in greater numbers.

And this thread is drawing them in left and normal.

crappy cheese

Roquefort is not "crappy cheese". Camembert is not "crappy cheese". Raclette is not "crappy cheese". Munster [not to be confused with Muenster] is not "crappy cheese". Comté is not "crappy cheese". Reblochon is not "crappy cheese". Brie is not "crappy cheese".

/s

To clarify, each of my statements isn't tendered sarcastically--in fact I stand by them--rather the entirety in my feigned outraged tone is intended to read as sarcastic.