The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Liquid]

The Senate is sorely missing this fellow right here:

Yes, well, I prefer my war heroes to be those who weren't captured.

 

[Touring Mars]

He will be impeached, he just won't be removed from office.

I wasn't sure exactly how it works, but my understanding is that impeachment only occurs after the Senate has also voted, and that the lower house can only vote to recommend impeachment and take it to the next stage (a trial in the Senate)... either way, it isn't likely to achieve the central aim of getting rid of Trump... which, in turn, could just make Trump's position stronger. Ironically, it would also make another impeachment considerably less likely (is it even possible?).

For me the crux of the problem is not so much what Trump has done (or admitted to), but whether it constitutes a criminal offence to withhold foreign aid. Clearly, if the foreign aid was being withheld solely to force an investigation into a political rival, it would indeed look like a very serious offense. But there is some legitimacy to the question of what the Bidens were up to and what US money was/is being used for in Ukraine, and hence whether Trump had any legitimate reason to hold on to it until concerns over corruption were addressed. I suppose the temptation was too much when he also realised the potential for landing a political rival right it in to boot.

 

[CodeRedR51]

My chips are down that the dang guy is tellin it like it is.
If it turns out I am wrong, I wil be sad and admit America has died.

Too late.

 

[Danoff]

I wasn't sure exactly how it works, but my understanding is that impeachment only occurs after the Senate has also voted, and that the lower house can only vote to recommend impeachment and take it to the next stage (a trial in the Senate)... either way, it isn't likely to achieve the central aim of getting rid of Trump... which, in turn, could just make Trump's position stronger. Ironically, it would also make another impeachment considerably less likely (is it even possible?).

The House impeaches, the Senate convicts. Trump will be one of 3 presidents to ever have been impeached very shortly. The central aim I think is holding Trump accountable to the degree possible. The house is doing everything they can.

They can impeach again, but I doubt they would. Trump would have to do something impeachable again, and at this point we're in election mode.

For me the crux of the problem is not so much what Trump has done (or admitted to), but whether it constitutes a criminal offence to withhold foreign aid. Clearly, if the foreign aid was being withheld solely to force an investigation into a political rival, it would indeed look like a very serious offense. But there is some legitimacy to the question of what the Bidens were up to and what US money was/is being used for in Ukraine, and hence whether Trump had any legitimate reason to hold on to it until concerns over corruption were addressed. I suppose the temptation was too much when he also realised the potential for landing a political rival right it in to boot.

If his intent was simply to root out corruption, there is a process he could have undertaken. And he'd have wanted to do that carefully since it involved a political rival. The process he took instead (to use his personal lawyer as a go-between) is not consistent with that frame of mind. Also, his intent could have been both. All of this is discussed at length in the video below, which takes a fairly dispassionate look at the legal position.




He didn't have the authority to hold up the aid, he didn't seem to have any interest in the investigation, only announcement of the investigation. The only story that holds together (and it holds together very nicely) is the one where he was at least partially (and that's all it takes) motivated by his campaign.

Edit:

It does not constitute a criminal offense to withhold foriegn aid. But it does constitute an abuse of power for the president to withhold foriegn aid appropriated by congress for more than 45 days, and it constitutes a criminal offense to withhold foreign aid on condition of investigating a political rival, and it constitutes a further criminal offense to threaten witnesses in an investigation of a criminal offense.

Edit: And yet another to ignore congressional subpoenas.

 

[Biggles]

From what I heard it won't reach the Senate till January.

Don't feel like that man. It's good to debate people.
Trust me, I'm not the most liked or have the best posts in this section or agreed with posts.
I'm sure you know this site well but don't let it detour you.
I've had posts I posted where I was wrong and agreed with the rebuttal, I've also had posts where they claim I'm wrong and I still won't agree with them. It happens. Hell I don't even really come here for GT anymore but I do appreciate hearing other opinions.
It is what it is and you get international opinions too!

I'm not trying to tell ya what to do but don't let it get to ya. We need people that have different opinions here!

Peace, love and chicken!

I always appreciate your posts ryzno ... even if you are usually wrong!

 

[Danoff]

This follow-up, which looks at the other historical impeachments, is also really great. And it clarifies the obstruction of justice articles as being more about ignoring congressional subpoenas than I realized:

 

[TexRex]

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) likens Trump impeachment process to trial of Jesus

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) during his remarks in the House's floor debate prior to its vote on the articles on impeachment compared the impeachment proceedings against President Trump to the "sham" biblical trial of Jesus.

“When Jesus was falsely accused of Treason, Pontius Pilate gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers," Loudermilk told his congressional colleagues.

"During that sham trial, Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus than Democrats have afforded this president in this process," he continued.

"Normal people", not only in Washington but right here on this forum*, seem to so delight in drawing parallels between Trump and the Messiah.

*

Let's face it, Trump could walk on water and all you'd be hearing is how terrible he is because he can't swim.

One wonders if Trumpism really is as debilitating as it seems, what with the apparent impairment of critical thought, the tendency to resort to obscurantism in discussion and the biblical delusions.

 

[Biggles]

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) likens Trump impeachment process to trial of Jesus




"Normal people", not only in Washington but right here on this forum*, seem to so delight in drawing parallels between Trump and the Messiah.

*

One wonders if Trumpism really is as debilitating as it seems, what with the apparent impairment of critical thought, the tendency to resort to obscurantism in discussion and the biblical delusions.

Try this one from Rep. Clay Higgins who's fearlessly "descended into the belly of the beast".



Aside from the biblical invocations, Higgins presentation of the electoral map (a favourite prop of the GOP) draws unwarranted implications from the electoral map. It ignores the fact that the relative voting population varies between each county. Instead, it can make people feel like all of the land has the same population. And it’s not designed to express the margin of victory within each county. It shows who won in a county, even if they won by just one vote. It’s a winner-takes-all graph which in no way is representative of the general views of the American population.


Other maps that give a more reasonable picture of the distribution of votes in the US.:

Half the population lives in the counties shaded grey, the other half in counties shaded blue.

This map shades counties according to the popular vote in each county. Shades of purple indicate a vote closer to 50/50.

And this map shows the electoral map of the US adjusted to show the counties "resized" to reflect the size of the voting population.

 

[Swagger897]

Try this one from Rep. Clay Higgins who's fearlessly "descended into the belly of the beast".



Aside from the biblical invocations, Higgins presentation of the electoral map (a favourite prop of the GOP) draws unwarranted implications from the electoral map. It ignores the fact that the relative voting populations varies between each county. Instead, it can make people feel like all of the land has the same population. And it’s not designed to express the margin of victory within each county. It shows who won in a county, even if they won by just one vote. It’s a winner-takes-all graph which no way is representative of the general views of the American population.


Other maps that give a more reasonable picture of the distribution of votes in the US.:

View attachment 874542

Half the population lives in the counties shaded grey, the other half in counties shaded blue.

View attachment 874543

This map shades counties according to the popular vote in each county. Shades of purple indicate a vote closer to 50/50.

View attachment 874549 And this map shows the electoral map of the US adjusted to show the counties "resized" to reflect the size of the voting population.

In before “Dust doesn’t vote”

 

[TenEightyOne]

Done. Donald J. Trump has been impeached.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Can we all take a deep breath now?

 

[Biggles]

Can we all take a deep breath now?

Not really. It's just the end of the beginning.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Even if he isn't removed from office, a point has been made.

 

[Swagger897]

Even if he isn't removed from office, a point has been made.

That US congress is a joke? That neither side can be taken seriously?

 

[DesertPenguin]

That there are two kinds of people. Those that live in reality and those that make their own.

 

[Sander 001]

Forgive the Republican talking points for being a bit incoherent at times; somethings didn’t translate well from the original Russian

 

[TexRex]

Now we get to watch the GOP continue to demonstrate their moral bankruptcy.

31 Democrats were elected in 2018 in districts that Trump won in 2016. These folks are wary in varying degrees of voting for impeachment lest they be voted out in 2020.

Well, it seems they powered through. Or this was an empty notion.

That US congress is a joke? That neither side can be taken seriously?

Is there any point soliciting you to elaborate?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Tulsi is still keeping her target on the presidential race.

 

[Sander 001]

 

[Danoff]

Putin thinks the Trump impeachment was a sham.

Republicans:

 

[zzz_pt]

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) likens Trump impeachment process to trial of Jesus




"Normal people", not only in Washington but right here on this forum*, seem to so delight in drawing parallels between Trump and the Messiah.

*

One wonders if Trumpism really is as debilitating as it seems, what with the apparent impairment of critical thought, the tendency to resort to obscurantism in discussion and the biblical delusions.

Maybe "Rev." fits him better than "Rep.".

Also, the biblical reference isn't 100% accurate. Depending on the gospel, Jesus had quite a few different trial processes and behaviors.

 

[Zona]

So now that he has been impeached - it will go to the senate and I reckon nothing will happen because the Republicans control the senate.
I just want all this BS to be over with.

 

[TexRex]

Maybe "Rev." fits him better than "Rep.".

I suspect he'd appreciate that.

Also, the biblical reference isn't 100% accurate. Depending on the gospel, Jesus had quite a few different trial processes and behaviors.

Pfft. Details.

...

This just popped up as a result of a quick search.



Republican lawmakers are a source of tremendous oral gratification for him, to be sure. Get your minds out of the gutter, folks, I'm obviously referring to the things they say.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So now that he has been impeached - it will go to the senate and I reckon nothing will happen because the Republicans control the senate.

That depends on when it goes to the Senate, it looks like it won't be immediate (in session terms).

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Nancy Pelosi looks like she is about to throw a shoe. Such sombering.

 

[ryzno]

That depends on when it goes to the Senate, it looks like it won't be immediate (in session terms).

Nancy and Mitch are playing games of how they want to handle witnesses in the Senate hearing. I still don't think it won't be till January from what I heard. Which I don't think will make a difference cause we(the people) don't vote for anything till November 2020. Who's in the Senate will still be there, unless she's going to hold out till Nov. 2020 in a hope to have a Democrat majority in the Senate but by then people will really be calling the impeachment politically motivated which would only hurt the Dems. IMO.
---
And Tulsi is pulling my strings hard to get my vote.

 

[CodeRedR51]

So now that he has been impeached - it will go to the senate and I reckon nothing will happen because the Republicans control the senate.
I just want all this BS to be over with.

Nothing will happen and he'll get reelected next year because this country is just that screwed up.

 

[Dotini]

Something unusual has happened. The House has not sent the Articles to the Senate. They could be held back in perpetuity. They may now be no trial in the Senate.

 

[Danoff]

Something unusual has happened. The House has not sent the Articles to the Senate. They could be held back in perpetuity. They may now be no trial in the Senate.

There was never going to be a trial in the Senate, McConnell already gave us a heads up on that.

I understand the House's desire to ensure that the Senate is going live up to the oath to “do impartial justice” that they'll swear at the start of the trial. Especially given that McConnell has declared exactly the opposite. But I imagine that the House will not hold up forever. They're just revealing that they plan to condition the Senate further than we all realized possible.

 

[TexRex]

Can something that occurs after a third of all presidential impeachments really be categorized as unusual? Sure, impeachment itself is relatively unusual at 6.67%, but the House not immediately forwarding articles of impeachment to a demonstrably and admittedly impartial Senate isn't particularly groundbreaking in that context.