Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
uke2se said:
You have no points. You are just regurgitating Republican gaslighting.
Click to expand...
I've mentioned this to one other person but if you think I'm just regurgitating lies and trying to manipulate then dont bother with a long response trying to rebuke my arguments. Just get straight to the point next time and I know not to waste your time, or mine trying to have a discussion. Thanks. I'm not attacking your character so I at minimum expect the same level of respect.

The only other thing I'll address from you is that the obstruction of Congress article is weak. There is a separation of power at play and the executive branch has a right to dispute demands from another branch. The judiciary handles cases where there are disputes between either one and the impeachment inquiry failed to exercise their right to have the judiciary step in
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
A straw man exercise.

It wasn't bribery. It was extortion.

It wasn't Trump's money to give ... to 'bribe' with, in the first place. A majority of both chambers of Congress had already given it to Ukraine. Congress was in full possession of all the facts regarding the issues of potential corruption when they did so.

Trump was threatening Ukraine, using his control of the Executive Branch as a club. as a weapon.

With money that was already theirs by legal right. I guess that's in character for Trump. That's the same way he treated his contractors.

I suppose you could twist the meaning of "extortion" to somehow match "bribery", but you seem to be against that sort of thing.

At least when it is convenient.
Click to expand...

This is two sides to the same coin just as a sale is. If I buy a vehicle from you for say 10,000 dollars you're also buying 10,000 dollars with a car. No doubt, Trump is extorting Ukraine, but he is also bribing them as well as he is asking for a bribe.

I think people are playing word games to obfuscate the facts. There is no doubt whatsoever that all the components are there including intent that this is bribery. The problem arise out of Trump being President and claims of immunity and the blatant obstruction.
 
acbytesla said:
This is two sides to the same coin just as a sale is. If I buy a vehicle from you for say 10,000 dollars you're also buying 10,000 dollars with a car. No doubt, Trump is extorting Ukraine, but he is also bribing them as well as he is asking for a bribe.

I think people are playing word games to obfuscate the facts. There is no doubt whatsoever that all the components are there including intent that this is bribery. The problem arise out of Trump being President and claims of immunity and the blatant obstruction.
Click to expand...

Sure, but it's irrelevant to the impeachment clause. Soliciting foreign interference is a much more clear cut violation of Trump's oath of office, and it is the go-to example of why impeachment is in the constitution in the first place. That Trump solicited foreign interference by withholding funds that weren't his to withhold to a country that needed them to fight off military invasion by one of Trump's allies (puppetmasters?) makes it morally worse, but it's not a necessary component for this being a violation.
 
What's with the whining about Trump being "duly elected" as if that somehow is an argument against impeachment?

Who else are you going impeach than someone elected or appointed? If he wasn't duly elected, he wouldn't need to be impeached to get rid of him.
 
Yep.
Election 2018 doesn't count, only 2016.
And you can't Impeach without bipartisan support, just like you can't arrest someone against their will...
 
pgwenthold said:
What's with the whining about Trump being "duly elected" as if that somehow is an argument against impeachment?

Who else are you going impeach than someone elected or appointed? If he wasn't duly elected, he wouldn't need to be impeached to get rid of him.
Click to expand...

And as I've also mentioned a few times it misses the point that all the people impeaching Trump were duly elected as well and that's without bringing in all the evidence that Trump wasn't exactly duly elected 100%.

Every Democratic member of Congress was just as "duly elected" as Trump.
 
TragicMonkey said:
It doesn't matter how it looks. The days of image mattering are over, the sides have been chosen, the villains are proudly wearing black uniforms with skull insignia on everything. They don't care if you point out their hypocrisy, they don't care if you expose their evil. They're now at the point of shooting people in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and laughing about it because nobody can stop them.
Click to expand...

It matters to the point that with the Senate as partisan as it is and proudly saying that they haven't and won't even look at the evidence, nothing about the trial really matters as far as legal issues go. But it will have an effect on the polls in 2020. And the question is whether it will erode support for Trump, or whether it will increase it. That will come down to a question of how each side looks to the swing voters. It will be far from the only factor as to how people vote, of course, but it will be a factor.

Looking as good as possible and making the Republicans look as bad as possible may not be the best move possible for the Democrats in an ideal world, but it's pretty much the only move the actually have.

The other reason why delaying the Articles would be a silly move is that it's the opposite of a threat. Trump doesn't want a trial, and neither does McConnell. So the Democracts say "unless you promise to conduct the trial in a way that we like we won't let you have a trial", and the Republicans will say "...okay".
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
If this was a jury trial, I would agree that it would be a slam dunk. But it isn't. Trump will almost certainly be acquitted, and that could influence some people who are on the fence and who prefer to follow rather than make their own evaluations.
Click to expand...
How many people "on the fence" (rather than already in the cult-compound) will think the Senate GOP carefully considered the evidence and decided Trump was not guilty? It must be vanishingly few.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Getting second place in a popularity contest means you get to do whatever you want.
Click to expand...

If only it were that simple. In fact, you have to win a majority of fifty different popularity contests, each with its own quirks and priorities - and they're weighted.

The progressive's problem is that because America is organized as a union of independent states, rather than a subdivision into administrative regions, winning a political popularity contest for progressives really just means racking up redundant votes in some states, while losing the votes they actually need to win the union as a whole.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Here comes the last gasps of resistance democrat nonsense. Not sure what these people are going to do once the McConnell Senate acquits on a party line vote.

This isn't to say that I oppose impeachment. It's absolutely the right thing to do and the duty of every member of Congress to remove this corrupt president.

But these people out there singing "impeachmas" carols just make me wonder what they actually think is going to happen. There is 0% chance that Trump will be removed by the current Senate.
Click to expand...
Which will provide a strong argument for him being removed by ballot, along with as many GOP Senators as possible. It'll fire up the Democratic base.
 
theprestige said:
You know what I mean.
Click to expand...
I know what I think you meant, but you have demonstrated such a flexibility of meaning to suit your needs that I don't see how I can assign any value to it. You'll have meant something else tomorrow.

As it stands, what you wrote is correct. The House has a duty to investigate the crimes of the president, and they have an obligation to impeach when the evidence of those crimes is found to be overwhelming. They have impeached, and they are continuing to investigate - the subpoenas to Bolton et al slowly winding through the judicial system have not been rescinded. Additional enquiries can be pursued, additional witnesses called to testify under oath, additional articles of impeachment can be added. What they are not obligated to do is to promptly hand the articles over to McConnell to tear in half and line his enclosure with. That would not be in keeping with their duty to investigate and their obligation to pursue justice.
 
CapelDodger said:
It'll fire up the Democratic base.
Click to expand...

Okay. And?

The Democratic Base was already going to vote against Trump. That's a not a net gain.

Unless we can get some sort of "Okay you'll get to cast two votes against Donald Trump if you prove you super-duper-double don't like him" Constitutional Amendment passed in the next couple of months I don't see what "firing up the base' is gonna do.

The base is as fired up as it's gonna get. It's not getting any bigger is the problem.

People get that right? That a passionate vote still counts the same as dispassionate one? The people who just don't like Trump and people who hate him with the raw seething passion of a thousand dying stars.. have the exact same amount of direct political power? 1 vote for or against.

Making people who already hate Trump hate him more is not the problem. Getting people who don't hate him to realize why they should is.
 
CapelDodger said:
How many people "on the fence" (rather than already in the cult-compound) will think the Senate GOP carefully considered the evidence and decided Trump was not guilty? It must be vanishingly few.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It must be. It has to be. There is absolutely no other possibility.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay. And?

The Democratic Base was already going to vote against Trump. That's a not a net gain.

Unless we can get some sort of "Okay you'll get to cast two votes against Donald Trump if you prove you super-duper-double don't like him" Constitutional Amendment passed in the next couple of months I don't see what "firing up the base' is gonna do.

The base is as fired up as it's gonna get. It's not getting any bigger is the problem.

People get that right? That a passionate vote still counts the same as dispassionate one? The people who just don't like Trump and people who hate him with the raw seething passion of a thousand dying stars.. have the exact same amount of direct political power? 1 vote for or against.

Making people who already hate Trump hate him more is not the problem. Getting people who don't hate him to realize why they should is.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The danger for the Democrats is just assuming everyone will turn out to vote against Trump, and not bothering to remind them why they should. The impeachment process has left Trump writing insane manifestos and the Trumpers hatefully circling the wagons in clear defiance of democratic ideals, and that's a motivating force you don't want going to waste.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom