The Trump Impeachment Thread

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 2,103 comments
  • 86,756 views

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

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
VFOURMAX1
I thought the impeachment trial against Clinton was about as bad although in the eyes of the law he did break the law. I am glad he was not removed from office for having a fling with an intern.
Click to expand...

That intern has a name. Monica Lewinsky.

Its a pretty telling thing to do when people are not willing to accept that people in power can make mistakes to make the victim completely meaningless.

That was the thing that just jumped out at me, just seemed so strange to just make someone so minor and not at all important.
 
VFOURMAX1
But again Liberals only see what they want and ignore facts that do not coincide with their agenda.
Click to expand...

Considering the Republicans in Congress didn't want to hear from any witnesses and made up their mind prior to any sort of hearing, they're the ones seeing what they want to see in this case. Every Congressperson who ignored their Constitutional duty should be ousted. Even if they were going to vote for or against, at the very least they could've put up a charade like they were taking their duty seriously.

Also, what's it with you assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is a liberal? Even remotely insinuating @Danoff is liberal is actually downright funny.

Rallywagon
Should the Bidens be investigated, sure, does that excuse Trumps actions? Absolutely not.
Click to expand...

I really don't get how people don't understand this. Yes, the Bidens are probably guilty of doing something illegal, but that doesn't excuse Trump from breaking the law. Also, neither of the Bidens in question are the president, so the consequences for their actions are a tad bit different than Trump's.
 
Joey D
Considering the Republicans in Congress didn't want to hear from any witnesses and made up their mind prior to any sort of hearing, they're the ones seeing what they want to see in this case. Every Congressperson who ignored their Constitutional duty should be ousted. Even if they were going to vote for or against, at the very least they could've put up a charade like they were taking their duty seriously.
Click to expand...

All the Republicans did was take a page from the playbook set by the Democrats against Clinton in his impeachment trial.
Actually some of the very Democratic senators that wanted no witness in the Clinton trial were the ones pushing for witness against Trump. I sort of find that the role reversal and repeat the very position that the Democrats took back then to be fair play and poetic justice. Of course the modern day Democratic supporters since they are not getting their way want to call foul and pitch a fit that the Republicans executed the exact position the Democrats took back then when it favored them.

Read the quotes below and compare it to the current trial and then say it is only the Republicans who take that stance.

Current day pov, “Trials have witnesses. That’s what trials are all about, and documents,” Schumer said. “Live testimony is the best way to go.”

That wasn’t his point of view in 1999, when Democrats opposed hearing from witnesses and tried to dismiss the case outright. Schumer and McConnell are among 15 senators who will participate in their second presidential impeachment trial.

Joe Biden once urged Democrats two days ahead of President Bill Clinton's Senate impeachment trial that charges could be dropped without taking into account new evidence.

"The Senate may dismiss articles of impeachment without holding a full trial or taking new evidence. Put another way, the Constitution does not impose on the Senate the duty to hold a trial," the Delaware Democrat said in a Jan. 5, 1999, memo Politico published Thursday.
 
VFOURMAX1
All the Republicans did was take a page from the playbook set by the Democrats against Clinton in his impeachment trial.
Actually some of the very Democratic senators that wanted no witness in the Clinton trial were the ones pushing for witness against Trump. I sort of find that the role reversal and repeat the very position that the Democrats took back then to be fair play and poetic justice. Of course the modern day Democratic supporters since they are not getting their way want to call foul and pitch a fit that the Republicans executed the exact position the Democrats took back then when it favored them.
Click to expand...

So because the Democrats failed to do their job with Clinton, that somehow excuses the Republicans this time around? Ya, it doesn't work that way.

And for the record, I do believe Clinton should've been removed from office.
 
msve83l.jpg
 
ryzno
So what you're saying is what Trump did is on level with Hitler?

Okay...
Click to expand...

There's no meme-friendly way of displaying authoritarianism that doesn't come with a healthy side of extremism. Memes are not designed to be subtle. Other than the Nazis, your choices are Mao, Stalin, Mussolini, or maybe Ji Xinping, Putin or any of the Kims if you want to be current. At some point you might as well just lean into it and go for broke.

I think if you generalise it to "levels of increasing authoritarianism" then it's a somewhat interesting point. The last two are exactly the sort of thing that we in the West make fun of China and Russia for doing, and the second last is the response of at least some Republicans to the Senate trial. After making their way through all of the first three.

That's... not the most comfortable thing in the world, unless you think that China and Russia are well-run countries with some really advanced and desirable political systems.
 
ryzno
So what you're saying is what Trump did is on level with Hitler?

Okay...
Click to expand...

Yes. Not 1945 Hitler, but 1932/33 Hitler. A brash, loud-mouthed, narcissistic politician with a persecution complex, who espouses nationalist, xenophobic, racist, & authoritarian views, who attacks the democratic institutions of the state & the "corrupt status quo" & receives the support of a significant minority of the electorate.
 


The unwillingness is palpable. Miss Lindsey's unwillingness has left him with a case of the vaypahs. "Oh, mah stars."
 
Imari
It's not like they just had the opportunity to unstick themselves and go with President Pence or anything.
Click to expand...
"Dance with the one that brung ya".

I'm sure, if you'll think back, that Trump was rightly and vehemently opposed by all ~20 Republican candidates in the run-up to the 2016 elections.

Many, most or all tried in their ways to terminate Trump's campaign before it caught fire in the prairie. Thats when they first became stuck.
 
VFOURMAX1
What they found out after the fact does not translate to bribery.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. "I want you to do me a favor"... "oh, no favor? you don't get your money"

Bribery. How hard is this?

VFOURMAX1
And yes the money was later released without any "favor"being received so again no bribery!
Click to expand...

He paid them after he got caught bribing and extorting them and this is supposed to make him seem less guilty? Even Senate Republicans admit that he did it. Trump went on camera after he did it and explained it.

VFOURMAX1
All the Republicans did was take a page from the playbook set by the Democrats against Clinton in his impeachment trial.
Click to expand...

The corruption page.
 
Is there anything in the Constitution that could be amended to avoid this "corruption" from ever happening again?
 
Dotini
Is there anything in the Constitution that could be amended to avoid this "corruption" from ever happening again?
Click to expand...

Maaaaaaybe.

If the court system had a way to impose a check on the Senate for refusing to fulfill their oaths, it might be possible to remove Senators who engage in corruption, and replace them with newly elected Senators that could fulfill their oaths of office. The problem with that is that it would give the courts a ton of power (and they aren't elected, at least not at the top).

So no, probably not. At some point you need people to do their jobs. All we have now is voters.
 
Danoff
Maaaaaaybe.

If the court system had a way to impose a check on the Senate for refusing to fulfill their oaths, it might be possible to remove Senators who engage in corruption, and replace them with newly elected Senators that could fulfill their oaths of office. The problem with that is that it would give the courts a ton of power (and they aren't elected, at least not at the top).

So no, probably not. At some point you need people to do their jobs. All we have now is voters.
Click to expand...

At this point I really don't care about Trump being impeached. What would be MUCH more reassuring is for him to be decisively voted out of office by the electorate. I believe that a significant majority of the American people do not support Trump. The problem is, the American electoral system puts disproportionate power in the hands of rural voters, who tend to be more "conservative". The damage being done right now is not so much by Trump, but by the Senate failing to exercise a check on his power. This is compounded by the ability of the Senate to control who gets placed on the Supreme Curt. The only way to counter it is for Democrats to have a large enough electoral majority to overcome the imbalance in the system.
 
Biggles
This is compounded by the ability of the Senate to control who gets placed on the Supreme Curt.
Click to expand...

That's really more under the control of the executive, who does the appointing. The Senate could refuse to confirm, but so far they haven't really exercised that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

You do highlight another abuse by the recent Republican-controlled Senate, who refused to confirm an Obama appointee for no good reason other than partisan politics.
 
Danoff
That's really more under the control of the executive, who does the appointing. The Senate could refuse to confirm, but so far they haven't really exercised that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

You do highlight another abuse by the recent Republican-controlled Senate, who refused to confirm an Obama appointee for no good reason other than partisan politics.
Click to expand...

Not only did the Republican-controlled Senate refuse to consider Merrick Garland, they also systematically stalled the appointment of many other lower court Obama nominees, leaving the door open for Trump appointments. This is the number of courts of appeal justices appointed by Trump & the Republican-controlled Senate compared to the numbers appointed by previous Presidents at a similar point in their presidency (the second number being the total during their tenure):

  • Trump: 50
  • Obama: 24 (55)
  • Bush : 30 (62)
  • Clinton: 27 (66)
  • Bush Sr.: 31 (42)
  • Reagan: 23 (83)
 
Danoff
You do highlight another abuse by the recent Republican-controlled Senate, who refused to confirm an Obama appointee for no good reason other than partisan politics.
Click to expand...
One man's partisan politics is another man's principle.
Both parties tend to nominate judges who are generally supportive of their social philosophies, abortion and so forth. So I think it is fair to characterize the appointment of judges, especially those on the Supreme Court, as a matter of the very highest concern of their term, a matter of principle and philosophy rather than simply corruption or partisanship.
 
Dotini
One man's partisan politics is another man's principle.
Both parties tend to nominate judges who are generally supportive of their social philosophies, abortion and so forth. So I think it is fair to characterize the appointment of judges, especially those on the Supreme Court, as a matter of the very highest concern of their term, a matter of principle and philosophy rather than simply corruption or partisanship.
Click to expand...

Yes, the appointment of judges can be done on principle... holy hell.

Abusing the powers of your office to do it is corruption and unprincipled. How is this hard?
 
So, Rand Paul finally did the deed and named the whistleblower publicly yesterday - he also explains why, and it is an interesting (well, kind of) point that I've been wondering about for some time. You can watch the video of Paul's question here.
 
Touring Mars
So, Rand Paul finally did the deed and named the whistleblower publicly yesterday - he also explains why, and it is an interesting (well, kind of) point that I've been wondering about for some time. You can watch the video of Paul's question here.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Paul at all. Of course the whistleblower had some bias. Someone who was loyal to Trump might bury evidence instead of bringing it to light. The only way we're going to get this kind of report is from someone who is not Trump's crony. Of course it comes from someone who doesn't like Trump. The idea that we should listen to only people who love or support trump is absurd, and it changes the facts exactly none.

The points on the FISA court seem to have at least some merit.
 
Republicans: "They wanted to impeach him from the beginning."

Trump: *brazenly breaks law while under scrutiny*

Republicans: "The Democrats are the ones in the wrong here."

...

Rand Paul doesn't seem the least bit "unwilling" or "stuck".
 

Similar threads

Earth
Things You Want To See In GT6 Besides Vehicles and Tracks
167 168 169
Replies
5K
Views
355K
GTV0819
GTV0819

Latest Posts

Back