The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Chrunch Houston]

Why can’t you answer it?

Why should I waste my time? It is pretty clear what you think. If you think the Republican house official report is 'unfounded nonsense' I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Dotini]

Can you explain why the legal case is flabby?

Yes, I can! Thanks for asking!
I am reliably assured this is the case by a highly regarded and knowledgeable lawyer who is very well placed within the Democratic party. He has daily professional access to top elected executive, legislative and judicial officials.

Can you explain why, in principle, you are against impeachment?

In principle, I am NOT against impeachment. I never enjoyed anything so greatly as the true justice of Nixon's humbling resignation.
Even now, the biggest problem I have with it is the increase in already troubling polarization of the people. Trump is, as has been suggested, little better than a dumpster fire.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Yes, I can! Thanks for asking!
I am reliably assured this is the case by a highly regarded and knowledgeable lawyer who is very well placed within the Democrat party. He has daily professional access to top elected executive, legislative and legislative officials.

So you know a guy.

In principle, I am NOT against impeachment. I never enjoyed anything so greatly as the true justice of Nixon's humbling resignation.
Even now, the biggest problem I have with it is the increase in already troubling polarization of the people. Trump is, as has been suggested, little better than a dumpster fire.

So you agree that he should be impeached on principle, but don't want it to happen because it would be messy. That seems cynical.

 

[Danoff]

nothingbuger

What does this word even mean to you? You're not using it in any way that I can discern except maybe "whatever Trump thinks I should say right now".

Understanding how flabby (so far) the legal case is against Trump,

Flabby? I don't know what you mean. Do you mean not strong? Or do you mean overloaded with evidence? The case against Trump is as cut and dry as it gets.

Do you think winning a vote of Censure against Trump would be more valuable than losing a vote of Impeachment?

They won't lose a vote of impeachment. They might lose a vote of removal in office in the senate. But if they do their jobs, they'll leave it to the republicans in the senate to side with corruption.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

What does this word even mean to you?

Burger, Nothingburger . Thanks I fixed it. I doubt Trump cares much about what I say.

 

[jjaisli]

I doubt Trump cares much about what I say.

If only the rest of his supporters would also come to this same conclusion, once they’re past the Five Stages of Grief, we could possibly move on and move forward during the next election. I’m still a bit incredulous that a rich, entitled, narcissistic, NY billionaire has really managed to convince so many people that he’s on their side and fighting the good fight. So much that he commits blatant crimes and those same supporters just look the other way. If I wasn’t witnessing it first hand, I never would have believed it possible.

 

[Liquid]

@Chrunch Houston
@stonesfan129

You two in particular have been outspoken not necessarily in your defence of Trump but in your attack on the impeachment enquiry.

What would it take for you to believe that there was a case for impeachment? Based on this case underway now, what would it take for you to accept the charges and evidence as true?

 

[TexRex]

Yes, I can! Thanks for asking!
I am reliably assured this is the case by a highly regarded and knowledgeable lawyer who is very well placed within the Democrat party. He has daily professional access to top elected executive, legislative and judicial officials.

One would imagine an individual keen to accuse others of being unwilling to engage in discussion would be more inclined to reciprocate when solicited to engage themselves.

Don't you at least have a video to accuse people of not watching when you disagree with what they have to say?

No, he's trolling.

And it seems he's not alone.

 

[Scaff]

Yes, I can! Thanks for asking!
I am reliably assured this is the case by a highly regarded and knowledgeable lawyer who is very well placed within the Democrat party. He has daily professional access to top elected executive, legislative and judicial officials.

That's not an explanation, it's an appeal to authority.

Try again...

Oh, and it's the Democratic party.

 

[UKMikey]

Oh, and it's the Democratic party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

I'm not correcting you, it's just that I learnt something new today.

 

[BobK]

Oh, and it's the Democratic party.

How pedantic.

 

[TexRex]

How pedantic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

 

[eran0004]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

I'm not correcting you, it's just that I learnt something new today.

How creative of the Republans

 

[Danoff]

The Republican-leaning folks are usually so matter-of-fact. Marriage is between a man and a woman. They're illegal immigrants, get in line and wait your turn. You can pry my guns from my cold dead hands. But suddenly it's "what exactly does bribery really mean anyway, and why is it against the rules? If Trump is found not-guilty by the process, who am I to decide what's what?".

It's hilarious. It is very clever to try to recast someone who is obviously clearly guilty (and admitted it) as somehow not guilty if there are enough blind party loyalists in the Senate (not the House, obviously).

 

[Scaff]

How pedantic.

No, simply accurate.

As has been pointed out, it's most commonly used as a slur, and I'm sure we should all be ensuring the conversation remains civil.

 

[TexRex]

The Republican-leaning folks are usually so matter-of-fact. Marriage is between a man and a woman. They're illegal immigrants, get in line and wait your turn. You can pry my guns from my cold dead hands. But suddenly it's "what exactly does bribery really mean anyway, and why is it against the rules? If Trump is found not-guilty by the process, who am I to decide what's what?".

It's hilarious. It is very clever to try to recast someone who is obviously clearly guilty (and admitted it) as somehow not guilty if there are enough blind party loyalists in the Senate (not the House, obviously).

Assuming it gets that far. Attack the proceedings rather than addressing the allegations and it's unnecessary to venture that sort of reductionism.

 

[ryzno]

Yay! I get to hear 4 lawyers for 8 hours explain why he should be impeached today!
This, like murder cases recorded on video, shouldn't take so damn long!
I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of it being on the news 24/7, pro or anti Trump.

 

[Danoff]

Yay! I get to hear 4 lawyers for 8 hours explain why he should be impeached today!
This, like murder cases recorded on video, shouldn't take so damn long!
I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of it being on the news 24/7, pro or anti Trump.

Just... don't watch! It'll be summarized later. That's what I'm doing.

 

[PocketZeven]

From: REPORT OF EVIDENCE IN THE DEMOCRATS’ IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Just saying "the evidence does not support" does not mean it is so. I can easily write a document for flat earth:
- the evidence does not support the earth is a sphere.
- the movie eric the viking clearly does not establish the earth is spherical
- ancient charts and maps are flat and clearly and do not support the evidence that the earth is spherical
- The accusations assertion that the earth is sperical is unfair and subjective.
- It has been publically reported that the earth is flat in youtube videos

Just try to look at the evidence without any bias. Replace the name Trump with any other independant or neutral politician. Would you still conclude the accused did nothing wrong?

edit: spelling

 

[Biggles]

Summary: the 3 law professors called by the Democrats make a strong case, based on their reading of the evidence, the Constitution & historical precedent for Trump's conduct to be impeachable, the Republican witness agrees that Trump's conduct was wrong, but does not rise to the level of an impeachable offence.

 

[TexRex]

Trump: "Jonathan Turley exonerates me completely." Probably.

Edit: Turley's Turnabout.

"If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct," Turley testified in 1998 during Clinton's impeachment hearings. He added that Clinton's actions didn't need to break any laws in order to be considered impeachable conduct.

"While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable," Turley wrote in a 2014 op-ed for the Washington Post. "Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough. And the founders emphasized that impeachments were about what happened in the political arena: involving 'political crimes and misdemeanors' and resulting in 'political punishments.'"

It's...it's as if he's changed his tune simply because of who the subject of these impeachment proceedings represents.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

@Chrunch Houston
@stonesfan129

You two in particular have been outspoken not necessarily in your defence of Trump but in your attack on the impeachment enquiry.

What would it take for you to believe that there was a case for impeachment? Based on this case underway now, what would it take for you to accept the charges and evidence as true?

While the current proceedings aren't exactly fair, my main gripe was that they started the whole thing without a vote. Now they have had one. I just wanted the Democrat house members to be held accountable. Now they will be.

Just saying "the evidence does not support" does not mean it is so. I can easily write a document for flat earth:
- the evidence does not support the earth is a sphere.
- the movie eric the viking clearly does not establish the earth is spherical
- ancient charts and maps are flat and clearly and do not support the evidence that the earth is spherical
- The accusations assertion that the earth is sperical is unfair and subjective.
- It has been publically reported that the earth is flat in youtube videos

Just try to look at the evidence without any bias. Replace the name Trump with any other independant or neutral politician. Would you still conclude the accused did nothing wrong?

edit: spelling

I don't suppose you bothered to read any of the other 109 pages of the report I linked to. The summary I posted is backed up with facts.

 

[Danoff]

While the current proceedings aren't exactly fair, my main gripe was that they started the whole thing without a vote. Now they have had one. I just wanted the Democrat house members to be held accountable. Now they will be.

What?

Oh you think that this is going to backlash against democrats, and by having a vote on impeachment proceedings, the democrats are going to get fallout for supporting it.

This is about holding the president accountable. Holy hell.

I don't suppose you bothered to read any of the other 109 pages of the report I linked to. The summary I posted is backed up with facts.

Did you? Care to post some of those facts? Or are we suppose to just presume that somewhere in 109 page document is everything @Chrunch Houston needs to support whatever he posts.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

While the current proceedings aren't exactly fair, my main gripe was that they started the whole thing without a vote. Now they have had one. I just wanted the Democrat house members to be held accountable. Now they will be.

I don't suppose you bothered to read any of the other 109 pages of the report I linked to. The summary I posted is backed up with facts.

Held accountable for what?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

What?

Oh you think that this is going to backlash against democrats, and by having a vote on impeachment proceedings, the democrats are going to get fallout for supporting it.

Yes.

Held accountable for what?

The voters will have their say next November. The Dems had a great turnout for a midterm election in 2018. Hell I knew I was in a safe district, I stayed home only to wake up the next day with a Democrat as my rep. The Republicans won't be staying home next November.

Did you? Care to post some of those facts? Or are we suppose to just presume that somewhere in 109 page document is everything @Chrunch Houston needs to support whatever he posts.

I took a screenshot of the summary page and posted it, along with the link to the whole 110 page document. I am not a wall of text writer. I am not going to go point by point paraphrasing what is already written.

 

[TexRex]

Heh.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The voters will have their say next November. The Dems had a great turnout for a midterm election in 2018. Hell I knew I was in a safe district, I stayed home only to wake up the next day with a Democrat as my rep. The Republicans won't be staying home next November.

Let me try to parse the logic here.

You felt like the impeachment process was unfair until the democrats held a vote to authorize it, and then presumably now feel like it is fair because they did have a vote (that's the implication in your post anyways).

You then jump to hoping the democrats are held accountable, which doesn't seem to relate to the first point

You then jump to a prediction that they will be held accountable rather than answering what they need to be held accountable for. I'm guessing they need to be held accountable for...overseeing the executive branch...which is their responsibility as members of congress.

I can't follow.

 

[Dotini]

I can't follow.

31 Democrats were elected in 2018 in districts that Trump won in 2016. These folks are wary in varying degrees of voting for impeachment lest they be voted out in 2020.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

31 Democrats were elected in 2018 in districts that Trump won in 2016. These folks are wary in varying degrees of voting for impeachment lest they be voted out in 2020.

Thank you.
@Eunos_Cosmo Trump has about a 90% approval rating among Republicans. Perhaps you don't see it because of where you live, but there are a lot of pissed off Republicans right now.

I really think that if they do impeach, the Republicans will retake the house and Trump will win. It may already be too late for the Dems.

 

[TexRex]

31 Democrats were elected in 2018 in districts that Trump won in 2016. These folks are wary in varying degrees of voting for impeachment lest they be voted out in 2020.

Hey, look who wants to appear interested in discussion by responding to a solicitation for an explanation of remarks directed toward someone else but has demonstrated no interest in offering a good faith explanation of his own remarks when one is solicited. It more than kinda-sorta calls into question his agenda.