The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Rallywagon]

Just talking heads dribbling bs to their base. "This whole impeachment was partisan shamiry so we are going to ignore everything, witnesses and evidence included, and acquit as soon as the articles reach our desk because we are not partisan at all." Oh the feels.

 

[PocketZeven]

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.

What does the law say about revealing the identity of a whistleblower?

 

[Biggles]

Holy hell, Mitt Romney will vote to remove Trump from office. Who would've thought the rebel in the GOP would be the Mormon dude from Utah*?

*I mean he's actually from Michigan, but whatever.

Pretty powerful speech. Hard to see what possible personal benefit Romney could derive from this, other than the judgement of history.

 

[Danoff]

What does the law say about revealing the identity of a whistleblower?

It sounds like it protects the whistleblower from repercussions from the government, but does not protect identity. At least from what Rand Paul is saying.

 

[Touring Mars]

What does the law say about revealing the identity of a whistleblower?

Rand Paul doesn't reveal the identity of the whistleblower, but merely reads out his question that names two people, one of which is widely suspected of being the whistleblower.

Indeed, his point seems to be 'why did the Chief Justice refuse to read out his question if no-one supposedly knows who the whistleblower is?' - by not reading out Paul's question, they all but confirmed that one of the people mentioned in Paul's question is the whistleblower, and that they must know who he is.

 

[Liquid]

Holy hell, Mitt Romney will vote to remove Trump from office.

Pretty powerful speech. Hard to see what possible personal benefit Romney could derive from this, other than the judgement of history.

You look back at the 2008 and 2012 elections where, even acknowledging Obama as the obvious darling candidate, McCain and Romney were portrayed as the crazy old pensioner and the whacked-out religious nut respectively who would plunge the United States 200 years into the past.

But then you look at their Senate careers and some of their individual politics with enough hindsight and you think... maybe they weren't all bad. Even if you still think it's mostly bad, the small diamonds of principled politics stand out compared to their vilification at the time.

Politics. Weird.

 

[Touring Mars]

Listening to both sides speak in the final statements in Trump's impeachment 'trial'... it a great shame that there are passionate and sincere speakers on both sides, both speaking about defending the great traditions of US democracy and its founding principles - and yet, one can't help but consider the almost total disregard that the current president has for such things. The GOP have certainly won the battle, but they risk losing the 'war' by seeking to defend 'The President' above all other considerations, even when that president is obviously not deserving of such robust defence.

 

[Danoff]

You look back at the 2008 and 2012 elections where, even acknowledging Obama as the obvious darling candidate, McCain and Romney were portrayed as the crazy old pensioner and the whacked-out religious nut respectively who would plunge the United States 200 years into the past.

But then you look at their Senate careers and some of their individual politics with enough hindsight and you think... maybe they weren't all bad. Even if you still think it's mostly bad, the small diamonds of principled politics stand out compared to their vilification at the time.

Politics. Weird.

I think it's illustrative of a couple of points.

1) There was not a big difference between the republicans and democrats at the time. Even though everyone thought there was.
2) We didn't realize how good we had it with the candidates that were being offered.
3) Trump is different precisely because voters wanted someone to shake things up.
4) Demonizing political opponents didn't get us anywhere good.
5) Many of our politicians today are awful

 

[ryzno]

If my ears are correct, he's been acquitted on both articles.

 

[Touring Mars]

Trump has been found not guilty of both charges in the impeachment trial.

In other news, a bear was spotted defecating in woods near Colorado this week.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Danoff]

 

[Biggles]

You look back at the 2008 and 2012 elections where, even acknowledging Obama as the obvious darling candidate, McCain and Romney were portrayed as the crazy old pensioner and the whacked-out religious nut respectively who would plunge the United States 200 years into the past.

But then you look at their Senate careers and some of their individual politics with enough hindsight and you think... maybe they weren't all bad. Even if you still think it's mostly bad, the small diamonds of principled politics stand out compared to their vilification at the time.

Politics. Weird.

Yeah. For instance:

Bill Maher says he would give $1 million and 'become a Mormon' for Mitt Romney to be president.

https://www.deseret.com/2017/2/12/2...come-a-mormon-for-mitt-romney-to-be-president

And Hindenburg seemed like a crazy old pensioner/right-wing militaristic nut until ...

 

[Lain]

If my ears are correct, he's been acquitted on both articles.

Expect this to be a 2030 bestseller:

 

[Liquid]

Trump has been found not guilty of both charges in the impeachment trial.

 

[Dennisch]

Can we now call him the Teflon Don?

 

[Touring Mars]

Can we now call him the Teflon Don?

That or Teflonald J. Trump

 

[Obelisk]

i don't want to live in this nation anymore. someone get me out of here.

 

[Darla Starch]

i don't want to live in this nation anymore. someone get me out of here.

Take the house you live in, secede, form your own nation, BAM we're gonna do bigly trade deals between your micronation and mine.

 

[TexRex]

Prediction: Trump won't leave quietly. It's just not in his nature. Come January 20th, be it next year or...*shudder*...2025, he'll be holed up in the Oval Office, White House security staff paralyzed in a fit of laughter over him having used that bigass desk to barricade one of the doors that opens out. Once he's vacated the building proper, the inflammatory rhetoric will still continue from whatever platform is made available to him.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

My completely unfounded optimism has me hoping that even if Trump wins in 2020, he'll have less motivation to be completely awful. Most of his dumber/more reckless decisions have been done in the service of getting re-elected.

Oh who am I kidding. Time to start building my bunker now.

 

[Danoff]

This doesn't really change anything. There has always been a question of whether he will leave office if someone else is elected. He's already hinted that he might not (he tweeted a "joke" about 3 terms). If the Senate voted to remove, he might not have gone willingly. If the public elects a Democrat in 2020, he might just say it was rigged and not leave willingly. In 2024 he may announce that he's done away with the 2-term limit, and given the way the republicans in congress are going, I'd expect them to just explain why that's in the interest of the US.

 

[TexRex]

I wonder when Fox News starts peddling Trump-branded kneepads for comfortable subservience. Made in China because there's no need to keep up the MAGA con; certified coronavirus-free.

 

[Dennisch]

This doesn't really change anything. There has always been a question of whether he will leave office if someone else is elected. He's already hinted that he might not (he tweeted a "joke" about 3 terms). If the Senate voted to remove, he might not have gone willingly. If the public elects a Democrat in 2020, he might just say it was rigged and not leave willingly. In 2024 he may announce that he's done away with the 2-term limit, and given the way the republicans in congress are going, I'd expect them to just explain why that's in the interest of the US.

You're thinking too small.

You'll be getting an emperor. And he has the offspring to keep the bloodline in power. He will probably tell the people that he was born from the eruption of Mount St Helens or something.

 

[TexRex]

You're thinking too small.

You'll be getting an emperor. And he has the offspring to keep the bloodline in power. He will probably tell the people that he was born from the eruption of Mount St Helens or something.

*laughs in Dutch*

FTFY.

...

Levity is important. It's funny because it's totally absurd.

Mostly absurd.

Absurd-ish.

Absurd adjacent.

 

[Darla Starch]

You're thinking too small.

You'll be getting an emperor. And he has the offspring to keep the bloodline in power.

*Darla Starch has created the "Darla Starch for Emperor of the United States of America" Faction*

 

[Pupik]

You're going to hear a lot of things about "waste of time and money" over the next few weeks. But remember, they're paid a salary. They stayed late and earned it, I suppose, and there's hazard pay for that. Besides, there's almost nothing they would have agreed on in the meanwhile, and the Senate still found time to vote for things like USMCA (which was either a re-crafting of NAFTA, or giving Adam Yauch a posthumous title...I forget which) in the downtime. So figures show it might be around $12,000,000 but that's probably just coming from another expense account.

That's 3.75 cents per US citizen.

i don't want to live in this nation anymore. someone get me out of here.

What's wrong with our nation? ...other than the idea that one can make any flimsy excuse to perform any action, have no accountability to one's actions, and not have to prove any part of it, nor allow others to prove/disprove it, because opinion is all that matters.

Our Constitution has been replaced with the National Enquirer.

This doesn't really change anything. There has always been a question of whether he will leave office if someone else is elected. He's already hinted that he might not (he tweeted a "joke" about 3 terms). If the Senate voted to remove, he might not have gone willingly. If the public elects a Democrat in 2020, he might just say it was rigged and not leave willingly. In 2024 he may announce that he's done away with the 2-term limit, and given the way the republicans in congress are going, I'd expect them to just explain why that's in the interest of the US.

To be honest, I've heard the similar rumblings in the waning days of every two-term President in the past 20 years, but you'd need a lot more than 50% to abolish a Constitutional Amendment. Maybe that's why he wanted the Space Force to be created?

 

[Rallywagon]

You're going to hear a lot of things about "waste of time and money" over the next few weeks. But remember, they're paid a salary. They stayed late and earned it, I suppose, and there's hazard pay for that. Besides, there's almost nothing they would have agreed on in the meanwhile, and the Senate still found time to vote for things like USMCA (which was either a re-crafting of NAFTA, or giving Adam Yauch a posthumous title...I forget which) in the downtime. So figures show it might be around $12,000,000 but that's probably just coming from another expense account.

That's 3.75 cents per US citizen.



What's wrong with our nation? ...other than the idea that one can make any flimsy excuse to perform any action, have no accountability to one's actions, and not have to prove any part of it, nor allow others to prove/disprove it, because opinion is all that matters.

Our Constitution has been replaced with the National Enquirer.



To be honest, I've heard the similar rumblings in the waning days of every two-term President in the past 20 years, but you'd need a lot more than 50% to abolish a Constitutional Amendment. Maybe that's why he wanted the Space Force to be created?

Oh you know Trump is schemin on a thing called sabotage...

 

[TexRex]

 

[Joey D]

This doesn't really change anything. There has always been a question of whether he will leave office if someone else is elected. He's already hinted that he might not (he tweeted a "joke" about 3 terms). If the Senate voted to remove, he might not have gone willingly. If the public elects a Democrat in 2020, he might just say it was rigged and not leave willingly. In 2024 he may announce that he's done away with the 2-term limit, and given the way the republicans in congress are going, I'd expect them to just explain why that's in the interest of the US.

What actually happens if a president refuses to step down? I assume someone, presumably the military, goes in and forcibly removes them from the White House.