Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Impeachment Odds: Place Your Bets

Impeachment Odds: Place Your Bets (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2019, 07:59 AM
 
Meanwhile, Trump's lawyers were before a Federal appeals judge, fighting the Manhattan DA's order for his tax returns. The lawyers' claim is pretty straight-forward...The President cannot so much as be investigated while in office, let alone tried for a crime. When asked if that would apply even to the hypothetical "shoot someone in Times Square" scenario, Trump's lawyers said that it does.

Basically, they are arguing for an untouchable, imperial presidency.

While this doesn't directly relate to the House investigation, an appeals court (or SCOTUS, where this is eventually headed) deciding for Trump's claim of immunity, would essentially kill any and all investigations, including the House's.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2019, 08:41 AM
 
Some of the guys "storming" in were on the committees that were eligible to be in the SCIF room. They just wanted to be part of the mob, and encourage people to think that republicans weren't allowed in the room. Misinformation. Fox News report they were literally asking to be arrested - which anybody else would have been. If they'd been arrested think how that would have gone: EVIL DEMS KEEPING US FROM THE TRUTH!

That they pulled this on this day, when Pelosi was at her brother's funeral, implies a) they were taking advantage of Pelosi's absence, b) there was something particularly damning in today's testimony they wanted to postpone, c) chaos is cool.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2019, 10:19 AM
 
Enough already, somebody needs to drag him into the street and burn him with napalm. I'll settle for a sniper though.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2019, 12:34 PM
 
Careful there Ca$h...
But yeah.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2019, 08:53 PM
 
And make him into a martyr? Are you nuts?
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2019, 12:26 AM
 
Let's pull for the rule of law.

Developments so far support abuse of authority and contempt of Congress. With hints of obstruction of justice. Those were the 3 charges Nixon faced when he resigned. The system is working as it should. If the evidence becomes conclusive, it will be sent to the Senate for trial. At which point, Trump will have his defense rights, to cross-examine witnesses, etc.

When Nixon was in office, he held broad Senate support until the tapes were made public. After that, Senate support rapidly vanished. If he hadn't resigned, he would certainly have been convicted.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2019, 05:43 AM
 
The law is a complete ass if a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2019, 04:04 AM
 
Alexander Vindman testified this week. He's the first person to testify who actually listened to Trump's Ukraine phone call.

Of note, Vindman testimony conflicts with Gordon Sondland's.
Vindman said he told Sondland that "his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push."

The account stands in stark contrast with the testimony delivered by Sondland to House investigators last week.

Sondland, a hotelier who donated one million dollars to Trump's candidacy and was appointed to the prestigious post by the president in 2018, said he did not recall that anyone from the NSC had "ever expressed any concerns" over the administration's dealings with Ukraine and that Sondland did not at the time know there was any connection between Biden and Burisma company.
That makes two people who disagree with Sondland. Bill Taylor's testimony also conflicts with Sondland's. It's looking like Gordon glossed over his support for the Ukraine shenanigans.

Oh, and Trump is already claiming Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is a Never-Trumper. Available data suggests he's non-partisan. And a decorated war veteran.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2019, 07:24 PM
 
Gordon Sondland has revised his testimony. He now remembers a quid pro quo shaping up.
He [Sondland] originally told investigators he took Trump at his word that there was never a quid pro quo attaching aid or a White House visit to investigations. But as additional witnesses testified and more information became public, Sondland appeared to have a change of heart. The week after his deposition, Sondland returned with lawyers to Capitol Hill to “review” his testimony.
Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, said he had told a senior official in Ukraine that nearly $400m in military aid would probably be withheld until the country announced an investigation into corruption, including allegations concerning a gas company with ties to the former vice-president Joe Biden’s son Hunter.
...
The altered testimony raised eyebrows in Washington. Matthew Miller, a former director of the office of public affairs at the justice department, tweeted: “Helluva thing for Sondland to have forgotten in his first appearance.”
According to the article, Sondland was the only witness who had not seen a quid pro quo developing. This doesn't look good for Trump's position that there was nothing wrong with his Ukraine call.

Ukaraine wisely wants no involvement in the impeachment investigation. I don't see anything for them to gain, regardless of how the impeachment goes.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2019, 08:24 PM
 
That's why the initial testimony was and should have been secret: otherwise witnesses will be able to adjust their testimony to match prior testimony. Sondland probably wanted to ensure not to be indicted for lying under oath.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2019, 08:36 PM
 
Those who oppose impeachment are finally making a move. Death threats against Fiona Hill, Marie Yovanovitch, others who have served on the NSC. They ramped up after Hill testified. Oh, along with obscene phone calls and unexpected visitors at her house.

Threatening witnesses often works to limit testimony in criminal cases. We'd better get that whistleblower exposed, so he/she can get death threats too.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2019, 09:33 PM
 
Well, you don’t want to leave him or her out … 
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2019, 01:57 PM
 
Gordon Sondland came back for the public testimony. The guy who kept leaving out things the other witnesses testified to.

This time, he stopped leaving those things out. Not sure if he left anything out the others hadn't mentioned.
In a major blow to the president, Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, said in bombshell evidence he was forced to work with Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani against his will, and criticised the White House and state department for failing to provide records.
...
“We did not want to work with Mr Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt. We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr Giuliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. So we followed the president’s orders.”
He may have talked his way out of the July 26 call he hadn't mentioned before. He remembers the call, but didn't attach significance to it at the time, and doesn't recall talking about Bidens etc. to anyone afterwards.

I'm not sure if I buy the forgetfulness, but he probably has talked his way out of indictment (lying to Congress under oath).
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2019, 02:15 PM
 
Twitter is full of sondland throwing trump under the bus jokes. They are delightful.
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2019, 08:32 AM
 
They've done it! Filed 2 articles of impeachment.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/12/...use-democrats/

Of course Trumpers are saying that makes him a shooin for reelection, but I really can't believe they don't understand what happened. I see right-wing family members posting articles which point out other times presidents negotiated with foreign governments about aid, and I want to shout, YES BUT NOT FOR PERSONAL GAIN OR TO UNDERMINE OUR CORE POLITICAL PROCESS!
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2019, 09:14 AM
 
They don't care.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2019, 03:21 PM
 
They really don't. While Trump is guilty as hell this is all just an exercise in "political masturbation". The GOP controlled Senate is never going to throw him out of office.

OAW
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2019, 08:43 PM
 
If they did vote to remove him, would he be allowed to run again?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2019, 09:25 PM
 
It appears that he could run again. The Constitution does not list such a barrier.

The political ads would be interesting to watch in such a case. "Vote for a Convicted Criminal! Endorsed by more Russians!"
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2019, 01:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
They really don't. While Trump is guilty as hell this is all just an exercise in "political masturbation". The GOP controlled Senate is never going to throw him out of office.
In the grand scheme of things, it is still important to do the right thing. Everyone involved will be judged by history, and I don't think today's GOP will be remembered fondly.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2019, 01:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
It appears that he could run again. The Constitution does not list such a barrier.
AFAIK this is not quite correct: should the Senate convict Trump, then the Senate could in addition disqualify from holding (certain or all) public federal offices in the future — including the Presidency. This is not in the US Constitution, but the Senate has disqualified people on three occasions in the past.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2019, 09:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
In the grand scheme of things, it is still important to do the right thing.
The trouble is, "the right thing" isn't a single, agreed-upon idea. You may believe that "the right thing" is to preserve and protect the Constitution, the office of the President, and the power of the legislative branch to maintain checks and balances on the executive. The GOP, on the other hand, believes that "the right thing", first and foremost, is whatever it takes to strengthen and maintain conservative hegemony. Period.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Everyone involved will be judged by history, and I don't think today's GOP will be remembered fondly.
I'm pretty sure the stock response to that would be "history is written by the victors."
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2019, 01:55 PM
 
The blue wave is still coming for some of those old GOPers. Ted cruz's days are numbered, as are Mitch's.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2019, 09:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
The trouble is, "the right thing" isn't a single, agreed-upon idea. You may believe that "the right thing" is to preserve and protect the Constitution, the office of the President, and the power of the legislative branch to maintain checks and balances on the executive. The GOP, on the other hand, believes that "the right thing", first and foremost, is whatever it takes to strengthen and maintain conservative hegemony. Period.
I understand what you are saying, and I agree it is frustrating and infuriating. However, here the Democrats have the choice between not doing anything because they'll lose in the Senate anyway or do what they believe is right. Too few elected officials risk their next election for doing the right thing anyway, but IMHO it is very important just to be able to look yourself in the mirror.
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
I'm pretty sure the stock response to that would be "history is written by the victors."
Yeah, and in the long run, I think the GOP is going to lose. Of course, I could be completely wrong, but that is what I believe. Instead of competing for votes by changing their ideas to match the electorate they are aiming for, they are trying to preserve an ever narrower margin with more and more immoral tricks. Eventually their luck will run out.

The downside is that this might still be 10 or 20 years away.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 18, 2019, 02:49 PM
 
I wish these impeachment hearings had popup fact checkers. All the no voters claiming it's a sham, should be ashamed of themselves.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2019, 12:05 PM
 
So it happened, the Senate is not going to indict, voting right across party lines, and it's back to the 2020 campaign?
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2019, 12:16 PM
 
Likely. Mitch is claiming to work in lockstep with the Trump lawyers, and I have heard when it gets to the senate they will not do anything beyond perfunctory procedures, won't call witnesses... but I have some hopes that Pelosi will push for testimony.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2019, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
So it happened
We did it, Reddit!
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2019, 04:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Likely. Mitch is claiming to work in lockstep with the Trump lawyers, and I have heard when it gets to the senate they will not do anything beyond perfunctory procedures, won't call witnesses... but I have some hopes that Pelosi will push for testimony.
Yeah, that's to be expected. It still should not deter people from doing the right thing.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2019, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Mitch is claiming to work in lockstep with the Trump lawyers ...
The jury working closely with the defendant, to make sure they get off. Why don't more courts work like this? We could really lower the incarceration rate, and save a ton on fewer jails.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2019, 09:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
They really don't. While Trump is guilty as hell this is all just an exercise in "political masturbation".
Guilty only in the masturbating minds of liberals.

Pray, tell, what crimes has Trump been convicted off ?


-t
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2019, 10:07 PM
 
You can't convict him since for some stupid reason you can't prosecute a sitting president. Everyone with any integrity or regard for truth or reality knows he's guilty of what he's been impeached for and that they chose two charges from a plethora of others that he's equally guilty of. Hell they could multip[y his charge of personal gain to the detriment of the country for holding government events at his own resorts but market rates and national security are more subjective than coercing foreign interference in an election so harder to prove in any court, let alone the Kangaroo Senate.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2019, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Pray, tell, what crimes has Trump been convicted off ?
Impeachment and the subsequent trial in the Senate isn’t about whether Trump will land in jail, but whether Trump will be removed from office. The US Constitution is quite clear, Trump need not commit a crime to be removed from office.

Besides, impeachment is analogous to an indictment, not a conviction. The trial in the Senate would determine whether Trump will be removed from office.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2019, 10:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You can't convict him since for some stupid reason you can't prosecute a sitting president.
This is currently just the opinion of the DoJ (and put forth as departmental policy), but one that hasn’t been tested in court, not least because the Attorney General is serving at the pleasure of the President.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Everyone with any integrity or regard for truth or reality knows he's guilty of what he's been impeached for and that they chose two charges from a plethora of others that he's equally guilty of. Hell they could multip[y his charge of personal gain to the detriment of the country for holding government events at his own resorts but market rates and national security are more subjective than coercing foreign interference in an election so harder to prove in any court, let alone the Kangaroo Senate.
The US Constitution is the Ford Model T of modern constitutions — a breakthrough at the time, but by now quite old technology. Impeachment as a tool to keep the judiciary and the executive in check hasn’t worked well, not least because no US President has ever been removed from office. Compare that to e. g. Prime Ministers who had to resign before the end of their natural term in other democracies, which is rare, but happens every once in a while. The basic problem is the wish of the Founding Fathers to not have political parties (which in an idealized world might be worth considering, but hasn’t worked out in reality) and the assumption that there’d always be competition between the executive and legislative branches. Instead, the US predictably has political parties and you have legislative and executive working together or competing depending on whether the majorities in Congress are of the same or of the other party than the President.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2019, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Compare that to e. g. Prime Ministers who had to resign before the end of their natural term in other democracies, which is rare, but happens every once in a while.
The threat of impeachment was enough to get Nixon to quit.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2019, 11:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Guilty only in the masturbating minds of liberals.
I suppose the 700+ American historians who called for impeachment are all corrupt?
President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president,
...
Collectively, the president’s offences, including his dereliction in protecting the integrity of the 2020 election from Russian disinformation and renewed interference, arouse once again the framers’ most profound fears that powerful members of government would become, in Hamilton’s words, ‘the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption’.
The 500+ law professors who wrote a similar letter a month earlier (linked in article) must all be masturbating liberals also.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2019, 02:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I suppose the 700+ American historians who called for impeachment are all corrupt?

The 500+ law professors who wrote a similar letter a month earlier (linked in article) must all be masturbating liberals also.
Means nothing until Trump is convicted in a court of law.
You can always find people with opinions.

-t
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2019, 05:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The threat of impeachment was enough to get Nixon to quit.
Ok, fair enough. But it is still way too rare to used as a tool to keep the executive branch in check.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2019, 05:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Means nothing until Trump is convicted in a court of law.
You can always find people with opinions.

-t
Impeachment has nothing to do with criminal proceedings. Impeachment gives Congress a mechanism to remove officials from the other branches from office. It is not about punishment for a crime, that’s totally separate. If hypothetically the President abuses his pardon powers, that could be grounds for impeachment and removal from office.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2019, 12:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Impeachment has nothing to do with criminal proceedings. Impeachment gives Congress a mechanism to remove officials from the other branches from office. It is not about punishment for a crime, that’s totally separate. If hypothetically the President abuses his pardon powers, that could be grounds for impeachment and removal from office.
Fine.

So at this point, Trump has neither been impeached, nor convicted of any crimes.

-t
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2019, 01:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
So at this point, Trump has neither been impeached, nor convicted of any crimes.
That's not right either: Trump has been impeached alright*, the House has passed two articles of impeachment. But impeachment is just the analog of an indictment, which comes before the trial in the Senate. (A lot of people conflate the two, perhaps because colloquially impeachment is often used to mean impeachment and removal. I did that, too, in my previous post, I think.)

And “not been convicted of crimes” is also a bit of a red herring since the DoJ will stick to its current guidelines that state that a sitting president may not be charged (with a federal crime, at least).


* I am factoring out political shenanigans here: Speaker Pelosi hasn't submitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate, because it seems Senate Majority Leader McConnell wants a “skinny” trial. Observers now disagree whether, formally, President Trump has been impeached. In the end, it is not a point worth fussing over, because the House passed articles of impeachment, and the two chambers will figure it out after the holiday break.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2019, 09:28 AM
 
No, he has definitely been impeached. That was what the House did. Once the House transmits the articles of impeachment to the Senate, the trial (in whatever form McConnell decides it will manifest) takes place.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2019, 02:44 PM
 
you guys lack understanding of the law.
He’s not impeached until it’s submitted to the Senate.

-t
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2019, 09:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
you guys lack understanding of the law.
He’s not impeached until it’s submitted to the Senate.
You did read the footnote in my post, did ya?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2019, 09:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Guilty only in the masturbating minds of liberals.

Pray, tell, what crimes has Trump been convicted off ?


-t
I’ll just leave this right here ....

So the point I’m trying to make is that you don’t have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this Constitutional republic. If this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds … because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.

- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
Bill Clinton lied under oath about a blowjob. He was never “convicted” of that crime. But he was impeached for it anyway by his GOP opponents whose leadership was knee-deep in their own extramarital affairs at the time. Donald Trump used taxpayer money to shakedown the leader of an allied foreign government for his own personal political benefit. It’s as obvious as the day is long to anyone who actually bothers to READ the evidence. Yet these same GOP leaders become willfully blind and deliberately obtuse about the facts that are staring them right in the face.

OAW
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2019, 05:39 PM
 
Anyone think they will try to get Trump to testify? I can't imagine it would be hard to get him to lie if they did. Then they could impeach him again.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2019, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I’ll just leave this right here ....



Bill Clinton lied under oath about a blowjob. He was never “convicted” of that crime. But he was impeached for it anyway by his GOP opponents whose leadership was knee-deep in their own extramarital affairs at the time. Donald Trump used taxpayer money to shakedown the leader of an allied foreign government for his own personal political benefit. It’s as obvious as the day is long to anyone who actually bothers to READ the evidence. Yet these same GOP leaders become willfully blind and deliberately obtuse about the facts that are staring them right in the face.

OAW
Except, that it’s very clear that the Ukraine story told by the Democrats is bullshit, just like Russiagate.

There are no facts supporting the allegations.
You need to seriously consider sources outside of CNN and MSNBC if you want the truth.

-t
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2019, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Anyone think they will try to get Trump to testify? I can't imagine it would be hard to get him to lie if they did. Then they could impeach him again.
Again, to what end ?
The senate will not let Trump go down.

Right or wrong, the Founding Fathers never wanted impeachment to be a partisan tool just to get rid of political opponents.
The effort has to be bi-partisan to be successful.

The ballot is where these things need to be decided.

-t
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2019, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The ballot is where these things need to be decided.
If we accept this premise, then an elected politician can do whatever they choose until the next election. Sell out the country, cheat on their wife/husband, shoot pedestrians on Wall Street, rob liquor stores, swipe people's medical insurance. A free pass for a few years of crime - whatever rocks their boat. There has to be a way to remove a bad apple, or someone will be above the law. No one is supposed to be - we don't have kings.
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Right or wrong, the Founding Fathers never wanted impeachment to be a partisan tool just to get rid of political opponents.
You stated that wrong. Per the witnesses and expert testimony, the Founding Fathers never wanted impeachment to be a partisan tool just to keep a favored pal in office, regardless of what laws they've broken. Besides, what's the big deal? VP Pence would be sworn in, and unless he has a heart attack on the spot, the Senate will approve a new Republican VP. I have no doubt Pence will continue general Republican policies, only without the drama on the side. No twitter tirades, no ladies snuck into the back door of the white house, no appointing billionaires to the cabinet who then stuff their pockets.
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The senate will not let Trump go down.
...
The ballot is where these things need to be decided.
I agree, but in a different context. The House has to do its duty, even if the Senate holds a kangaroo trial. The public will indeed make decisions, and obviously corrupt politicians will get voted out. This includes Senators who violate their oaths as well as Presidents. Forcing the Senate to show corruption on the record has value. Especially in an election year.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2019, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Except, that it’s very clear that the Ukraine story told by the Democrats is bullshit, just like Russiagate.

There are no facts supporting the allegations.
You need to seriously consider sources outside of CNN and MSNBC if you want the truth.

-t
It’s not about the story told by the DEMS. It’s about the story told by the WITNESSES.You only say there are “no facts” because that’s the Fox News mantra of DENIAL of what we saw in live televised hearings. From the same “news” source that regularly espouses the notion that we can’t the words spoken by the POTUS “literally” whenever they reveal his ongoing mendacity and a temperament clearly ill-suited for the office he holds.

OAW
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:42 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,