The Trump Impeachment Thread

[PocketZeven]

This is no different than when Clinton got impeached. House passed it, it died in the Senate and Bill finished his term.
It was pretty biased during that impeachment too. 45-55 out of 100(you need 67) in the Senate.

Blame Pelosi for not passing it on to the Senate... Not that it's going to make any difference when she does...

No it isnt the same. Receiving fellatio from an intern is not a criminal charge on any level. Trump asked a foreign power to investigate a domestic political opponent is wrong in much more ways. Bill Clinton lied about having an affair. Trump did both, but is impeached for just one.

edit: edited profanity

 

[ryzno]

No it isnt the same. Receiving fellatio from an intern is not a criminal charge on any level. Trump asked a foreign power to investigate a domestic political opponent is wrong in much more ways. Bill Clinton lied about having an affair. Trump did both, but is impeached for just one.

edit: edited profanity

I was talking about the political bias you complain about...
Regardless both men did something impeachable, both got impeached and nothing happened and nothing is gonna happen in the Senate this time.

 

[BobK]

No it isnt the same. Receiving fellatio from an intern is not a criminal charge on any level. Trump asked a foreign power to investigate a domestic political opponent is wrong in much more ways. Bill Clinton lied about having an affair. Trump did both, but is impeached for just one.

edit: edited profanity

Clinton was NOT impeached for "receiving fellatio". He was impeached for lying under oath, which is a felony.

 

[PocketZeven]

Clinton was NOT impeached for "receiving fellatio". He was impeached for lying under oath, which is a felony.

I stated that later in the sentence. "Bill Clinton lied about having an affair."

That said one crime does not have to do with the other.

 

[ryzno]

Trump did both, but is impeached for just one.

He Wut? Both articles of impeachment against Trump passed.

This seems like Deja vu.

 

[PocketZeven]

He Wut? Both articles of impeachment against Trump passed.

This seems like Deja vu.

I meant Lying about having an affair (albeit not under oath) and asking a foreign power for help in an election.

The point is the crime is different and therefore not comparable.

 

[ryzno]

I meant Lying about having an affair (albeit not under oath) and asking a foreign power for help in an election.

The point is the crime is different and therefore not comparable.

Kinda, instead of lying he refused to testify and defied subpoenas. IMO if you lie over something as frivolous as what Bill did, imagine everything else he lied about... Anywho...
Now while obstruction of justice is a crime, everyone has the right not to incriminate themselves. AKA pleading the 5th.
Similar see, instead of lying to help your case, you simply don't say anything.(count 2 for Trump)
Simple.
Oh and lying can also be considered obstruction of justice.
It's more than having a little fun with the secretary with Bill and as pointed out above my post, it is a FELONY to lie under oath.

 

[PocketZeven]

Kinda, instead of lying he refused to testify and defied subpoenas. IMO if you lie over something as frivolous as what Bill did, imagine everything else he lied about... Anywho...
Now while obstruction of justice is a crime, everyone has the right not to incriminate themselves. AKA pleading the 5th.
Similar see, instead of lying to help your case, you simply don't say anything.(count 2 for Trump)
Simple.
Oh and lying can also be considered obstruction of justice.
It's more than having a little fun with the secretary with Bill and as pointed out above my post, it is a FELONY to lie under oath.

As I told you. Clinton has nothing to do with Trump. (whataboutism)

Clinton's Trial for lying about an affair does not magically clear Trump of asking a foreign power for investigating a political domestic opponent.
If the senate was partial then, Does it give the right for the senators now to be partial?

If a murderer is released for murder because of a partial jury, does that mean every murder should be released? Because the Jury was partial before? Where is the logic in a whataboutism?

 

[Biggles]

Kinda, instead of lying he refused to testify and defied subpoenas. IMO if you lie over something as frivolous as what Bill did, imagine everything else he lied about... Anywho...
Now while obstruction of justice is a crime, everyone has the right not to incriminate themselves. AKA pleading the 5th.
Similar see, instead of lying to help your case, you simply don't say anything.(count 2 for Trump)
Simple.
Oh and lying can also be considered obstruction of justice.
It's more than having a little fun with the secretary with Bill and as pointed out above my post, it is a FELONY to lie under oath.

I think the question in Clinton's case is: does lying about an affair, even if it's perjury, amount to a "high crime & misdemeanour"? Who's to say? It does tie in with Bill's history of questionable sexual activities ... although he was clearly a rank amateur compared to President Kennedy.

If the economy hadn't been booming during Clinton's term, I don't doubt that he would have been more vulnerable. Ditto with Trump. But I have a hard time giving either Clinton or Trump much credit for the economy. "Clinton's economy" was due to an exploding tech sector, but was at least accompanied by a budget surplus. In Trump's case he is riding on the coattails of a long economic expansion & has insisted on boosting it further it by cutting taxes, thereby dramatically increasing the deficit at a time when it should be being paid down.

 

[Tired Tyres]

This forum is so one-sided against Trump, and since I started the thread I guess its up to someone to say something in order to keep up the semblance of fairness and balance. You must admit it would be pretty boring if there was no controversy, nobody to fear and loathe.

How many sides are needed? HE DID WRONG and ADMITTED IT. Slam dunk. What more needs to be said?

 

[UKMikey]

As I told you. Clinton has nothing to do with Trump. (whataboutism)

Clinton's Trial for lying about an affair does not magically clear Trump of asking a foreign power for investigating a political domestic opponent.
If the senate was partial then, Does it give the right for the senators now to be partial?

People are always going to compare and contrast the two impeachments and I don't think @ryzno is trying to argue that one makes the other invalid.

In this BBC video Nick Bryant argues that this impeachment is different because partisan politics has become more entrenched in the two decades since Slick Willy was on trial.

 

[ryzno]

Where is the logic in a whataboutism?

It's not a whataboutism. I'm trying to show you what happened in the last impeachment is happening as we speak.

If a murderer is released for murder because of a partial jury, does that mean every murder should be released?

No, they(every murderer) can appeal and hope for a better outcome.

Clinton's Trial for lying about an affair does not magically clear Trump of asking a foreign power for investigating a political domestic opponent.

I never said it did.

If the senate was partial then, Does it give the right for the senators now to be partial?

I'd say no. But we both know it's us vs them now.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

HE DID WRONG and ADMITTED IT. Slam dunk.

When did he admit it? Source please.

 

[Tired Tyres]

When did he admit it? Source please.

Telephone explanation on TV after the conversation was shown in text form.

 

[UKMikey]

6'25"

 

[Imari]

This is no different than when Clinton got impeached. House passed it, it died in the Senate and Bill finished his term.
It was pretty biased during that impeachment too. 45-55 out of 100(you need 67) in the Senate.

Blame Pelosi for not passing it on to the Senate... Not that it's going to make any difference when she does...

I honestly think she needs to just pass it and let the Senate do their job however they want to do it. If they do it fairly and choose to acquit, so be it. If they have a kangaroo court, then the American people will see that and hopefully respond appropriately.

If the Senate holds a sham trial and the American people don't respond, it can hardly be argued that the people haven't got the sort of government that they want. If there is obvious corruption simply in the process of applying the important role of checks and balances (I'm not talking here about Trump specifically, just the process of investigations, impeachment and conviction) and the majority of Americans don't think that this is an issue worth fighting for, then I think that will become a problem.

No it isnt the same. Receiving fellatio from an intern is not a criminal charge on any level.

That wasn't what he was impeached for. He was impeached for lying under oath. Which when you're the leader of the country is (and very much should be) a serious charge.

The people need to be able to trust their leader, and trust that while he may not always be able to tell them everything that he will at least not lie to them. Don't try and minimise Clinton's failings, while one might tolerate porkies from the President in day to day press briefings (Trump is the king of this, but every single president and presidential candidate does it), it's absolutely inappropriate in front of a grand jury to the point that there's a strong argument to be made that it's behaviour that disqualifies him from being President.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

6'25"

Just to be clear, is this supposed to be Trump's confession, that @Tired Tyres was referring to? And I assume it was at the 6min 25sec portion of the video and not how tall the video was.

Telephone explanation on TV after the conversation was shown in text form.

The video that @UKMikey posted, was that the telephone explanation on TV after the conversation was shown in text form that you were talking about?

So the confession is in that video, at the 6:25 mark?

 

[UKMikey]

So the confession is in that video, at the 6:25 mark?

Um... it's an admittal, not a "confession". This may help...

https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...ilitary-aid-quid-pro-quo-tv-2019-11?r=US&IR=T

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Um... it's an admittal, not a "confession". This may help...

https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...ilitary-aid-quid-pro-quo-tv-2019-11?r=US&IR=T

Thanks.

So I watched the entire video, and read the entire article entitled - "Trump essentially admitted on live TV to doing the thing he's accused of in the impeachment inquiry".

Essentially, I don't agree. I mean, I guess that's one way to look at it.

Is that the only confession admittal, from Trump? Is that what everyone who refers to 'Trump admitted it' is talking about? 'Cause that seems pretty weak.

 

[Liquid]

Thanks.

So I watched the entire video, and read the entire article entitled - "Trump essentially admitted on live TV to doing the thing he's accused of in the impeachment inquiry".

Essentially, I don't agree. I mean, I guess that's one way to look at it.

Is that the only confession admittal, from Trump? Is that what everyone who refers to 'Trump admitted it' is talking about? 'Cause that seems pretty weak.

Just replace Hitler with Trump.

Inb4 u compared trump 2 hitler

No, it isn't a fallacy; there are reasonable grounds for a reference to this cartoon and you're deliberately obtuse if you can't see it.

 

[UKMikey]

https://www.americanoversight.org/state-department-releases-ukraine-documents-to-american-oversight

 

[PocketZeven]

That wasn't what he was impeached for. He was impeached for lying under oath. Which when you're the leader of the country is (and very much should be) a serious charge.

Further in my post I pointed out that he lied about his affair.

This is a tricky slope in my opinion. What makes lying on social media and international tv less problematic ethically then lying under oath for a leader of a country? Trump will never go on trial or tell anything under oath, does that make him more ethical?

 

[Liquid]

Further in my post I pointed out that he lied about his affair.

This is a tricky slope in my opinion. What makes lying on social media and international tv less problematic ethically then lying under oath for a leader of a country? Trump will never go on trial or tell anything under oath, does that make him more ethical?

You can lie as much as you want day-to-day; if you are proven to have lied, the voters will either keep you in office or vote for someone else.

Clinton explicitly lied under oath. There's no Ifs or Buts about it, what he did under oath was illegal and he knowingly did it, knowing that it was illegal.

You don't have to defend or be an apologist for Bill Clinton to dislike Donald Trump and support his impeachment.

 

[Dotini]

Here's an interesting development: It may not matter that the House is holding back the articles of impeachment, and the Senate may go right ahead and hold the trial anyway!

POLITICO Playbook: Why holding the impeachment articles might not matter

By JAKE SHERMAN and ANNA PALMER

01/02/2020 08:55 AM EST
Updated 01/02/2020 09:17 AM EST

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may not need House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to send over the ariticles of impeachment in order to hold a trial. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

HERE’S A LITTLE BIT OF FOOD FOR THOUGHT: What if it doesn’t matter if Speaker NANCY PELOSI sends over the impeachment articles?

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL can actually conduct an impeachment trial even if Pelosi never sends the articles, should he choose, many people in the Capitol and legal community believe. Congress returns next week.

ELI HONIG, a former federal prosecutor and CNN analyst, described it this way when Jake appeared with him on SiriusXM the other day: The Constitution stipulates other instances when things must be “transmitted” to the Senate -- such as the ratified results of the electoral college vote. It never says anything like that when it comes to impeachment. So, McConnell can hold a trial without the articles. The majority leader has been mum about his intentions thus far, but has said that impeachment will lead to acquittal -- something nearly all Capitol watchers believe.
https://www.politico.com/newsletter...-impeachment-articles-might-not-matter-487974

 

[huskeR32]

The majority leader has been mum about his intentions thus far, but has said that impeachment will lead to acquittal

I think I found the partisan behavior you've been so fervently hunting for!

 

[PocketZeven]

Here's an interesting development: It may not matter that the House is holding back the articles of impeachment, and the Senate may go right ahead and hold the trial anyway!

POLITICO Playbook: Why holding the impeachment articles might not matter

By JAKE SHERMAN and ANNA PALMER

01/02/2020 08:55 AM EST
Updated 01/02/2020 09:17 AM EST

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may not need House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to send over the ariticles of impeachment in order to hold a trial. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

HERE’S A LITTLE BIT OF FOOD FOR THOUGHT: What if it doesn’t matter if Speaker NANCY PELOSI sends over the impeachment articles?

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL can actually conduct an impeachment trial even if Pelosi never sends the articles, should he choose, many people in the Capitol and legal community believe. Congress returns next week.

ELI HONIG, a former federal prosecutor and CNN analyst, described it this way when Jake appeared with him on SiriusXM the other day: The Constitution stipulates other instances when things must be “transmitted” to the Senate -- such as the ratified results of the electoral college vote. It never says anything like that when it comes to impeachment. So, McConnell can hold a trial without the articles. The majority leader has been mum about his intentions thus far, but has said that impeachment will lead to acquittal -- something nearly all Capitol watchers believe.
https://www.politico.com/newsletter...-impeachment-articles-might-not-matter-487974

Great so the republican message is: It is okay to ask foreign powers for help to win elections in the US. As long as you win the election or are the sitting the president. Or: when you are president, you can do what you want, especially when your party has a majority in the senate.

 

[Keef]

Great so the republican message is: It is okay to ask foreign powers for help to win elections in the US. As long as you win the election or are the sitting the president. Or: when you are president, you can do what you want, especially when your party has a majority in the senate.

I think that article is nothing more than food for thought, as it says.

Without Articles of Impeachment, the Senate has no charges for which to conduct a trial. It doesn't make any sense how they could conduct a trial with no charges.

 

[Dotini]

Great so the republican message is: It is okay to ask foreign powers for help to win elections in the US. As long as you win the election or are the sitting the president. Or: when you are president, you can do what you want, especially when your party has a majority in the senate.

Actually, I have found conservatives (e.g., The Hill) who acknowledge the President may have done wrong in asking a foreign leader to investigate a domestic political opponent. I agree. But at the same time, they say other Presidents have done far worse things in the recent past, and this one doesn't rise to level of an impeachable offense. The Republicans have only a narrow majority in the Senate, and perhaps 3 or 4 of them will not necessarily vote for acquittal. Amongst Republicans in general, the never-Trumpers are proliferous enough they may split and form a 3rd or 4th party for the elections. We shall see.

 

[PocketZeven]

But at the same time, they say other Presidents have done far worse things in the recent past, and this one doesn't rise to level of an impeachable offense.

I am not sure what"worse things" were you referring to?

 

[Dotini]

I am not sure what"worse things" were you referring to?

If I recall correctly, they mentioned things like attacking, invading and devastating foreign countries with great loss of life and ensuing refugee crises all on the basis of choice and not necessity.