The Trump Impeachment Thread

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 2,103 comments
  • 86,796 views

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


  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
Some of the information relating to the JFK assassination is still classified.

It's not the first time this move has been used for this particular event. Obviously he's completely innocent. Nobody who is guilty goes to these lengths to harass, cover-up, refuse court orders, block witnesses, and misuse government resources to bury information. I don't care how many times he has admitted it on camera, this is just not how a guilty person behaves.
 
So... Trump’s actions are comparable to the JFK assassination?
The implication is that the US has a longstanding culture and tradition of opacity, secrecy and classification. Although the President has the power to classify or declassify according to whim, there is a level of classification that is beyond his authority to access - special access programs (SAP).

Jimmy Carter was elected promising, among other things, to reveal what was known about UFOs. After meeting with the relevant officials on the matter, he was seen sitting at his desk, bowed down with his head in his heads, crying. He never spoke officially about it again.
 
Last edited:
I wonder whether he was crying because he received an astronomy lesson.

Straight Dope
It was around 7:15, shortly after dark, when Carter and a group of about 10 or 12 people spotted the alleged UFO over the countryside near Leary, Georgia. The object stood still in the sky for a period of ten or twelve minutes, slowly changing its color, size, and brightness, and then gradually retreated into the distance, disappearing from view. Carter estimated that the object, at its closest, was some 300 to 1,000 yards away.

Later research, however, has cast doubts on the Big Peanut’s credibility. Robert Sheaffer, a volunteer researcher for the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, reported in an issue of Zetetic magazine that what Carter actually saw on that fateful October eve was not a flying saucer, but the planet Venus, a notorious trickster in these matters.

Nor was the fateful eve in October–apparently, during the four year gap between the incident and Carter’s report, the President confused his dates. By checking the files of the Lion’s Club chapter that Carter was scheduled to address that evening, Sheaffer discovered that the actual date was January 6, 1969–a night on which the planet would be sitting in precisely the spot where Carter saw his spaceship. “Either an extraterrestrial space vehicle was covering up Venus,” Sheaffer concludes drily, “or Mr. Carter was looking at the planet.”

-- Cecil Adams
 
I haven't been following any of this particularly closely, but is there a set date for the verdict acquittal?
Fixed.

Some of the information relating to the JFK assassination is still classified.
The implication is that the US has a longstanding culture and tradition of opacity, secrecy and classification. Although the President has the power to classify or declassify according to whim, there is a level of classification that is beyond his authority to access - special access programs (SAP).

Jimmy Carter was elected promising, among other things, to reveal what was known about UFOs. After meeting with the relevant officials on the matter, he was seen sitting at his desk, bowed down with his head in his heads, crying. He never spoke officially about it again.
Oh look, more Dotini brand deflection and obfuscation.
 
My point is Dershowitz is not going to sell himself out for Trump. Dershowitz knows the law better than anyone.

Are you actually writing this with a straight face?


He also basically stated that a president can do whatever he wants if it is in the "public interest". In the same statement he admits it was a quid pro quo, did it to help his election and he is above the law, because his actions were in the public interest.

Imagine a democrat president withholding funding of a republican state to pressure them to anounce an investigation into a family member of a political opponent. That will be allowed in the future, because they can claim it is in the "public interest".
 
He also basically stated that a president can do whatever he wants if it is in the "public interest". In the same statement he admits it was a quid pro quo, did it to help his election and he is above the law, because his actions were in the public interest.
Why don't you find out what he really said and get back to me. I am not going to respond to your mischaracterization.
 
To be fair, it wasn't Trump that said it was quid pro quo. It was one of his underlings. Trump was clear that it wasnt, and then went on to describe how his actions were indeed quid pro quo.
Why don't you find out what he really said and get back to me. I am not going to respond to your mischaracterization.
I am curious. You, well, i guess you didnt ever claim not to be a trumpster, but I do have to ask. Do you support trump over the ideals of our constitution and our democratic republic at large? Do you support Trump over the democratic process? Right now Trumps lawyer is trying to defend Trumps, and every future president and running candidates right to to disrupt this process. To set the precedence that our open to fraudulent activities. Do you not at least find that line of defense at all disconcerting?
 
I am curious. You, well, i guess you didnt ever claim not to be a trumpster, but I do have to ask. Do you support trump over the ideals of our constitution and our democratic republic at large?
I do support Trump and think he has been doing a great job. No man, however, is greater than the US Constitution.

Do you support Trump over the democratic process?
No

Right now Trumps lawyer is trying to defend Trumps, and every future president and running candidates right to to disrupt this process. To set the precedence that our open to fraudulent activities. Do you not at least find that line of defense at all disconcerting?
I don't accept this premise. Dershowitz is defending the president and the presidency from impeachment over foreign policy and executive privilege.
 
I do support Trump and think he has been doing a great job. No man, however, is greater than the US Constitution.

No

I don't accept this premise. Dershowitz is defending the president and the presidency from impeachment over foreign policy and executive privilege.
Dershowitz said that the president pretty much has carte blanche to do what he wants so long as he believes "it's in the public's best interest." In this case, Dershowitz is arguing that the president unconstitutionally (remember, you agreed the president isn't above this) holding money as a bribe against another countries president does not constitute an abuse of power because the president feels its in "the public's best interest."
Now without even going down the slippery slope (like Trump ignoring term limits because "it's in the public's best interests", or not having a vote at all because his long term "presidency" is in the "public's best interest") of this precedence, breaking laws and ignoring the constitution to essentially cheat an election is never in the public's best interest, and for the president and his attorney to float that idea as an actual defense speaks to a spectacular level of narcissism and lack of respect if not down right disrespect for the voter, the democratic process, constitution and public at large.
 
Dershowitz said that the president pretty much has carte blanche to do what he wants so long as he believes "it's in the public's best interest." In this case, Dershowitz is arguing that the president unconstitutionally (remember, you agreed the president isn't above this) holding money as a bribe against another countries president does not constitute an abuse of power because the president feels its in "the public's best interest."
Now without even going down the slippery slope (like Trump ignoring term limits because "it's in the public's best interests", or not having a vote at all because his long term "presidency" is in the "public's best interest") of this precedence, breaking laws and ignoring the constitution to essentially cheat an election is never in the public's best interest, and for the president and his attorney to float that idea as an actual defense speaks to a spectacular level of narcissism and lack of respect if not down right disrespect for the voter, the democratic process, constitution and public at large.
Is this what Rachel Maddow is talking about?

Here is what Dershowitz said. 5 minutes.

 
Here is what Dershowitz said. 5 minutes.



https://medium.com/@legalscholarsonimpeachment/letter-to-congress-from-legal-scholars-6c18b5b6d116

More than 500 law professors, many of them considered experts on constitutional law, signed the above open letter arguing that Trumps actions *IF* true as described, were an impeachable offense. Yet you choose to believe the one man who also happens to be on Trump’s defense team. You do understand it's his JOB to try and defend Trump? But I guess you accepted Mr. Derschowitz's assumed beliefs that both O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein should be found innocent as well. Or was he just "doing is job" then as well.
 
Today is a new day. Perhaps the Senators will change their minds or the Chief Justice will change his. But if they don't, it would seem there will be no new witnesses or evidence and the trial will end today.
 
Today is a new day. Perhaps the Senators will change their minds or the Chief Justice will change his. But if they don't, it would seem there will be no new witnesses or evidence and the trial will end today.
Got any kneepads? You'll need them when he's exonerated despite being as guilty as sin.

To get down on one knee, bow your head and swear allegiance to your new emperor who will be in a position to do anything he wants at all as long as he says it's in his nation's interest.
 
Got any kneepads? You'll need them when he's exonerated despite being as guilty as sin.

To get down on one knee, bow your head and swear allegiance to your new emperor who will be in a position to do anything he wants at all as long as he says it's in his nation's interest.
We are embarked on a new and perilous reordering of reality, I agree.
 
Is this what Rachel Maddow is talking about?

Here is what Dershowitz said. 5 minutes.


No idea, I dont watch her or any MSM outlets really. I tend to look for the facts and form my own opinion rather than letting some news anchor or lawyer tell me what my opinion should be.
Nothing that Dershowitz argued in the clip really fits into this situation. Of course congress didnt impeach him for "quid pro quo" for financial reasons. Because that's not what happened. The first offense was stopping money he had no power to stop, in a fashion that was unconstitutional. Full stop, that is an abuse of power and impeachable. As far as I am concerned, that ends the conversation and wraps up the trial for me. He's admitted to it, his colleagues have admitted to it, that happened. The second was doing it to harm a political rival in upcoming elections, of which Dershowitz argues is totally fine by that very last sentence he speaks in the clip. His argument sets the precedence that presidents can manipulate elections if they "feel it's in the public's best interest." That is crazy! Do you really believe a president should have that sort of power? Are you sure that's a slippery slope we should approach? Because to me, and mind you, I am not a bleeding heart liberal, I am a hard working, blue collar veteran, to me, that is how we slip from our constitutional republic to a dictatorship. By ignoring the precepts of our constitution for political gains is absolutely illegal and unconstitutional and should be fought vehemently. As has been pointed out Dershowitz is paid very, very good money to be bias. He is paid very good money to try and twist the letter of the law to his clients favor. He is as bias as Trump is in this situation, and if he is the only place you are basing you opinion on, that is willful ignorance. If that is your modus operandi, then you deserve every bit of consternation you are receiving on this thread.
 
Gran Burisma: the bribe of your life?

Public Interest has to be the most generic and vague excuse I've ever heard, except when the phrase "the American People" is tacked on to it.

It's deflection from his personal interest to wield power, which should never be questioned, according to some folks, despite the fact that he holds public office.

Oh, but The American People voted for him, they'll say. Yeah, and they also voted for the sidecar Vice President, too...just like every election before or after. A fine legal replacement for which that decision is also imbued by our Constitution.

Or he just gets a censure and we all move on. Surprised someone hasn't really had the guts to say: "Look, he's a greedy smart-ass who had no experience in the job people voted him to perform, and he wouldn't know how to argue a parking ticket in a court of law, so we're sorry he made a stupid and inept mistake. He's pretty decent at grandstanding about trade, deflecting any real issues with capitalism eroding away at government decision-making, and is as unctuous as any other politician who wants to keep their own jobs, though."
 
Last edited:
Elected monarchies are historically rare but it's great to see the United States of America finally readopting something from its colonial past.
 
Elected monarchies are historically rare but it's great to see the United States of America finally readopting something from its colonial past.

Senate acquittal has been a foregone conclusion for some time. The only thing that can salvage this mess is a big move at the ballot box. When your elected representatives turn on their system, they need to be ousted quick.

Edit:

To be clear, I was hoping for witnesses (especially Bolton). But even then, I expected acquittal.
 
Agreed. It's a big ask though.

Shouldn't be. Nobody should be voting for these people. They've all turned their back on their country. They should all be seen as absolute disgraces by the American public. For just one example, in the last 48 hours, Rand Paul has hit some new impressive lows by insisting on disclosing the whistleblower.
 
I mean...is Logan related to Rand? I imagine Paul is a common enough surname, but that degree of jackassery is surely hereditary.

Or he just gets a censure and we all move on. Surprised someone hasn't really had the guts to say: "Look, he's a greedy smart-ass who had no experience in the job people voted him to perform, and he wouldn't know how to argue a parking ticket in a court of law, so we're sorry he made a stupid and inept mistake. He's pretty decent at grandstanding about trade, deflecting any real issues with capitalism eroding away at government decision-making, and is as unctuous as any other politician who wants to keep their own jobs, though."
It's a nice thought, but Trump is firmly lodged in the backside of the GOP like an oversized acrylic plug. Any Republican that speaks out against their champion runs the risk of being labeled a "RINO" or "cuckservative".
 
Elected monarchies are historically rare but it's great to see the United States of America finally readopting something from its colonial past.

I blame Megan Markel and Prince Harry.
 
For just one example, in the last 48 hours, Rand Paul has hit some new impressive lows by insisting on disclosing the whistleblower.

I find myself wondering what the late Steve Travis (Foolkiller) would have made of it all?
 
Why don't you find out what he really said and get back to me. I am not going to respond to your mischaracterization.
Attorney Alan Dershowitz:
“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,”


edit:
Full quote from transcript:

"The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal. Now we talked about motive. There are three possible motives that a political figure can have — one, a motive in the public interest. The second is in his own political interest. And the third would be in his own financial interest. I want to focus on the second one for just one moment. Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you’re right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
 
Last edited:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/31/trump-impeachment-trial-senate-democrats
On Thursday night, Republican Lamar Alexander, a retiring senator, said he would vote against witnesses, while fellow GOP senator Susan Collins, who is up for re-election this year, said she would vote in favor.

Alexander’s announcement effectively closed the door on the possibility Democrats would be able to force the Senate to bring on witnesses to testify in the trial.

Trump’s conduct was inappropriate but did “not meet the US constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense,” Alexander said.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/31/trump-impeachment-trial-senate-democrats
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida announced on Friday that he opposed convicting Trump despite his belief in Trump’s guilt. “Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office,” Rubio said in a statement.

That's how they're excusing themselves from having to listen to testimony. They've already decided he's guilty, and just aren't going to remove him from office. So from that perspective, yea I guess you don't need to hear from witnesses. Schiff made a great speech against just exactly this nonsensical rationale.

 
Back