The Trump Impeachment Thread

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 2,103 comments
  • 84,736 views

Will the current Articles of Impeachment ever be sent from the House to the Senate?

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
PocketZeven
So basically the President AND the Senate are above the law?
Click to expand...
From my very limited knowledge the House is as well. It's all seems to be dictated by who's got the numbers. I have no idea which side's right or wrong but if the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans had the numbers in the House for example, then no impeachment.

It all seems very odd to me. :boggled:
 
The charges are constitutionally incoherent.
The lower house has succumbed to partisan rage.
The charges, if allowed to cross the threshold of the Senate, would ensure every succeeding president is impeached on partisan sentiment.
Only one course is open to the Senate. Their duty is clear.

 
Mitch McTurtle calls Trump impeachment "most rushed" and "most unfair".

February 21, 1868, Andrew Johnson orders Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton be removed from office, violating the Tenure of Office Act passed by Congress less than a year earlier. The act was devised specifically to trap Johnson and has since rightfully been deemed unconstitutional.

February 22, 1868, the very next day, the House Committee on Reconstruction reports resolution of impeachment against Johnson.

February 24, 1868, just three days after Stanton was sacked, the House votes 126 to 47 to impeach Johnson of "constitutionally incoherent" high crimes and misdemeanors.

March 4, 1868, nine days following vote to impeach, the House presents articles of impeachment to Senate.

Mitch is an idiot blinded by his kinship with Trump.
 
Dotini
What law? The president was not charged with the violation of any known or recognized federal law.
Click to expand...

That isnt difficult, because a sitting president can not be charged, prosecuted or indicted (and therefore tried in a court of justice). Imagine if a criminal were allowed to consult with his jurors. :banghead:

Dotini
The charges are constitutionally incoherent.
Click to expand...

the articles of impeachment are pretty much described in the constitution litterally:

"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

If he was not president, he would have been indicted.
 
PocketZeven
That isnt difficult, because a sitting president can not be charged, prosecuted or indicted (and therefore tried in a court of justice). Imagine if a criminal were allowed to consult with his jurors. :banghead:
Click to expand...
Nixon was charged with obstruction of justice, a federal felony. Clinton was charged with perjury, a federal felony.
 
Dotini
Nixon was charged with obstruction of justice, a federal felony. Clinton was charged with perjury, a federal felony.
Click to expand...

Incorrect a sitting president cant be charged. Trump dodged that bullet (obstruction of justice) because he is President.

Also Nixon was almost impeached (not charged) and clinton was impeached not charged. Trump has been impeached with obstruction of congress and abuse of power. ticks the box of treason, high crimes and misdemeanors.
 
It bears pointing out that @Dotini continues to avoid elaborating on his remarks--instead opting to cite other events as "precedent" to suggest that the way things are being done now are somehow not the correct way, which it doesn't actually do--because making such an effort to engage in discussion results in the argument breaking down.

The argument doesn't break down if you don't actually argue it and instead simply strawman.
 
Federal law is irrelevant. The question is whether the president has misbehaved and whether it’s severe enough that he should be removed from office. It can be over something that is illegal by federal law, but it can also be about something else.
 
Keef
So as long as we do morally corrupt things that aren’t illegal, it’s fine?
Click to expand...
Possibly! What Trump has done is obstruct congress, no doubt of that at all. But it's not a federal crime and in DC it's done on a daily basis. Possibly politics is inherently a corrupt line of work, period. I'll give you that.

eran0004
Federal law is irrelevant. The question is whether the president has misbehaved and whether it’s severe enough that he should be removed from office. It can be over something that is illegal by federal law, but it can also be about something else.
Click to expand...

Partly true. Federal law is not irrelevant, as it was used against Nixon and Clinton. But impeachment charges by precedent are not limited to violations of federal laws. If what Trump has done is sufficient to remove him from office is the question. If affirmative, that will change the impeachment criteria for all future presidents. The founders desired a balance between executive and legislative branches. We probably don't want every president impeached. Probably the Senate will not hear this impeachment unless the House comes up with better charges and better evidence. And its not the Senate's role to do the House's work for them. Not at all. But I am sympathetic to the charge that presidents have usurped too much power since the time of Truman. But I am also suspicious of too much power by unelected officials. So it is with pleasure that I anticipate the coming investigations of special prosecutor Dunham.
 
Dotini
If what Trump has done is sufficient to remove him from office is the question. If affirmative, that will change the impeachment criteria for all future presidents. The founders desired a balance between executive and legislative branches.
Click to expand...

What change in impeachment criteria? Trump has this impeachment all to thank to himself. No other president has (or got caught) asking a foreign power to investigate a political rival as a “favor”. Not in the past anyways. Or refused to comply to all congressional subpoenas or any subpoenas for that matter. I believe future dem/rep presidents should be held to the same criteria.

If any other president had done the same exact thing as what trump did he would surely be impeached. Regardless of political affiliation. The only reason trump is probably getting away is because trump seems to get away with a lot of crimes. No other president has been as polarizing and a bully like him. Going after private citizens for just not agreeing with him or a so-called never-trumper. Just have an objective look at his career. He has gotten away defrauding an bullying people all his life.

The reason I did not want him impeached is because I really hope that when he gets out of office, albeit in 2020 or even 2024 his misdeeds will have gotten enough spotlight to finally put him in jail for his crimes. (Before he was President).
 
Last edited:
Republicans: "The call was perfect. He didn't ask for anything."

Also Republicans: "Okay, so he asked for something. But there was no quid pro quo."

Also Republicans: "I mean, sure, there was quid pro quo. It's just not impeachable."

House* impeaches.

Also Republicans: "They rushed it."

Also Republicans: [if not the above, and mind you there is no threshold for this; it was always going to be one or the other] "They dragged it out."

Also Republicans: [regarding the forwarding of articles of impeachment] "They're dragging it out."

They've lambasted it from the very beginning. Now they've been transparent about their unwillingness to be impartial jurors. They could have not been so brazen and simply acquitted, but then it looks like they're defying Trump by hearing the case. They're morally and constitutionally bankrupt ****-heels. They are Trump.

*Indeed it was the House that passed articles of impeachment and not solely Democrats. Democrats had the numbers to do so, but the single voting independent representative also voted in favor of the articles. But he abandoned the GOP to become an independent in 2017, so he's obviously just a never-Trumper and apparently that means he doesn't count.
 
TexRex
Indeed it was the House that passed articles of impeachment and not solely Democrats. Democrats had the numbers to do so, but the single voting independent representative also voted in favor of the articles.
Click to expand...
And three dems didn't vote for article I, and four dems didn't vote for article II.
 
Dotini
But impeachment charges by precedent are not limited to violations of federal laws. If what Trump has done is sufficient to remove him from office is the question. If affirmative, that will change the impeachment criteria for all future presidents.
Click to expand...

This isn't a change in precedent though. This is straight up and down what is described in the Constitution.

If other Presidents have been getting away with the same behaviour, I'd say that's a sign that the US hasn't been following it's own founding documents and that only now are you getting to stage where you're actually following the Constitution as written and intended.

The founders desired a balance between executive and legislative branches. We probably don't want every president impeached.
Click to expand...

You probably want every President that uses his power for personal gain impeached though, right? If Trump (or any president) is legitimately found to have abused his position as President, then removal from office seems appropriate. The position is intended to serve the country, not to serve themselves.

I mean, I'd argue that in general the President of the US isn't held to enough account for their actions, not just Trump. And stuff like the Patriot Act doesn't help the idea that the government should be accountable to the people. Saying "trust us, we know what we're doing" is insufficient.
 
Maybe it's best that we don't send the Articles to the Senate because it gives Trump more opportunities to display how stupid and hateful he is.

Never thought I'd get the news from a car blog that Senator Lindsey Graham thinks Trump should apologize. The same guy who said he would participate in a sham impeachment trial thinks Trump overstepped and should apologize. Come on, these guys have to know that Trump is inept by now, eh? How can you possibly support somebody you have to apologize for all the time?

The longer the House Holds the Articles, the more pissed off Trump gets, the more he goes off the rails at campaign rallies, the more fuel he adds to his fire, the more likely everybody else including his own team are to see that he needs to be out of office.
 
Dotini
Partly true. Federal law is not irrelevant, as it was used against Nixon and Clinton. But impeachment charges by precedent are not limited to violations of federal laws. If what Trump has done is sufficient to remove him from office is the question. If affirmative, that will change the impeachment criteria for all future presidents.
Click to expand...

It was only used against them to the extent that it raised the question whether it’s appropriate for the president to break the law. It’s not a legal process, where breaking the law leads to certain consequences, instead it’s a political process where the legislative body raises the question of whether the president has misbehaved (and misbehaved so badly that he should be removed).

What Trump is accused of is more than enough for impeachment and there is plenty of evidence to support these accusations. To use the powers of his office to pursue political opponents is a severe threat against democracy and it’s a shame that the republicans don’t realise that just because in this case it happens to work in their favour (if it had been successful).
 
Keef
Maybe it's best that we don't send the Articles to the Senate because it gives Trump more opportunities to display how stupid and hateful he is.

Never thought I'd get the news from a car blog that Senator Lindsey Graham thinks Trump should apologize. The same guy who said he would participate in a sham impeachment trial thinks Trump overstepped and should apologize. Come on, these guys have to know that Trump is inept by now, eh? How can you possibly support somebody you have to apologize for all the time?

The longer the House Holds the Articles, the more pissed off Trump gets, the more he goes off the rails at campaign rallies, the more fuel he adds to his fire, the more likely everybody else including his own team are to see that he needs to be out of office.
Click to expand...

Sounds like they're trying to give him enough rope to hang himself. Which is a strategy that should only scare Republicans who actually believe that Trump, a 73 year old man, doesn't have enough self-control to not rage like a 12 year old on a sugar high losing his first COD match of the day.
 
Keef
Maybe it's best that we don't send the Articles to the Senate because it gives Trump more opportunities to display how stupid and hateful he is.
Click to expand...
No, it's a process and it needs to continue, but we're only just into the third day post-impeachment of the nine it took the House to send articles up the ladder subsequent to Andrew Johnson's impeachment. That it's taken this long is precisely not unprecedented. I don't recall and can't seem to find a specific date for this step in the process regarding Clinton (it never occurred with Nixon), but he was impeached December 19, 1999 and the trial was announced January 5, 2000.

It's also worth noting that he doesn't need to be given the opportunity to be a ****-heel; if it wasn't "this", it would be "that".

Keef
Never thought I'd get the news from a car blog that Senator Lindsey Graham thinks Trump should apologize. The same guy who said he would participate in a sham impeachment trial thinks Trump overstepped and should apologize.
Click to expand...
He kind of doesn't. Take special note of Miss Lindsey's wording there. By treating it as a hypothetical situation ["if he said that"], he's given himself an opportunity to save face.

Keef
Come on, these guys have to know that Trump is inept by now, eh? How can you possibly support somebody you have to apologize for all the time?

The longer the House Holds the Articles, the more pissed off Trump gets, the more he goes off the rails at campaign rallies, the more fuel he adds to his fire, the more likely everybody else including his own team are to see that he needs to be out of office.
Click to expand...
It's a nice thought, but I'm not sure it applies here. I suspect the know fully who he is and they simply don't care as they're "all-in", but if they don't know, they never will.

Imari
COD Fortnite
Click to expand...
Fixed.
 
TexRex
No, it's a process and it needs to continue, but we're only just into the third day post-impeachment of the nine it took the House to send articles up the ladder subsequent to Andrew Johnson's impeachment. That it's taken this long is precisely not unprecedented. I don't recall and can't seem to find a specific date for this step in the process regarding Clinton (it never occurred with Nixon), but he was impeached December 19, 1999 and the trial was announced January 5, 2000.
Click to expand...

It seems like it was on the same day, December 19th.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/readers-respond/bal-clinton01-story.html
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
It seems like it was on the same day, December 19th.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/readers-respond/bal-clinton01-story.html
Click to expand...
That's unprecedented!

/s

A couple bits jump out at me:

On no article did the Republicans gain more than five Democratic votes, a fact that Democrats pointed to in arguing that the impeachment was purely an exercise in Republican partisanship.
Click to expand...
But in the wake of a historic political conflagration, Republicans expressed pride in having held the president to "the rule of law" that applies to all Americans.
Click to expand...
But then it went to the Senate, apparently with no Senate Democrat announcing they wouldn't pretend to be impartial.

I don't remember much of what occurred in the House. I suspect I wasn't paying much attention; this isn't an excuse, but I was probably preoccupied by my small daughter at the time.

The Senate trial stands out in my memory a bit more, and I remember being disappointed by Clinton's acquittal. I mean...I get the position that the articles had little to do with his role occupying the office of the president, but then the president should serve as an example and be held to a higher standard than that of a regular citizen.

I want even more now for Clinton to have been convicted and removed, for how might these proceedings differ had he been better held accountable.

Finally, I can't help but think what fun it would have been to have Bob Livingston around...

If the proceedings were not strange enough, Livingston stood up on the House floor to throw down the gauntlet to Clinton, challenging him to resign from office, and backing that challenge by resigning himself, not only from the speakership that he was to assume next year but also from the House of Representatives.

"To the president, I would say: 'Sir, you have done great damage to this nation over this past year. You have the power to terminate that damage and heal the wounds that you have created. You, sir, may resign your post,'" Livingston declared from the House floor before the vote.
Click to expand...
 
Lain


Dude's off his rocker, lmao
Click to expand...


Did you see his ramblings about toilets and dishwashers?

Trump does know how to play this off as if this impeachment is some sort of attack. Using "we" a lot. I can imagine it is firing up his following.

 
DesertPenguin
Basically using the "No, you" argument here
Click to expand...
C9tDBrDUAAAxFkU.jpg
 

Similar threads

Earth
Things You Want To See In GT6 Besides Vehicles and Tracks
167 168 169
Replies
5K
Views
354K
GTV0819
GTV0819

Latest Posts

Back