• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
But, but...I thought the GOP was "the party of law and order".
Click to expand...

These are the same people who think money is equal to speech. Since about 1975l the Republican party has worked to make bribery legal. The nail in the coffin was Citizens United.
 
acbytesla said:
These are the same people who think money is equal to speech. Since about 1975l the Republican party has worked to make bribery legal. The nail in the coffin was Citizens United.
Click to expand...

I agree about Citizens United. But we must remember that "corporations are people, too"! It's president/chairman is David Bossie:

In 2016 the Donald Trump presidential campaign enlisted Citizens United president David Bossie as deputy campaign manager.[14] During the campaign, Bossie made regular television appearances on behalf of the Trump campaign.[15] Bossie is a close friend and longtime acquaintance of Trump administration officials Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway,[16] having introduced Bannon to Trump in 2011
Click to expand...
(Wikipedia)

Why doesn't this surprise me?
 
pgwenthold said:
Yes, the Senate decided that "lying about a blowjob" did not rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" required to remove the President from office.

Now, in this case, they similarly vote to not remove as well, thereby sending the message that using the President's office to call for a foreign nation to try to discredit a political rival is not an abuse of office significant enough to warrant removal if office. They can do that, they just need to own it.

When reporters have asked congresscritters point blank, do you think it's ok for the president to ask a foreign country to investigate a political rival, the response from the GOP has been to run away. Own it, they have not.
Click to expand...

Maybe the cowardly establishment leaders will fall in line with their base.

A tweet from PollingReport.com

Is it acceptable for the president of the U.S. to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival, or is it not acceptable?

ALL
Yes 23%
No 64%

REP.
Yes 48%
No 29%

DEM.
Yes 4%
No 95%

IND.
Yes 22%
No 64%

(Quinnipiac U. Poll, RV, 12/11-15/19)
trend: http://pollingreport.com/trump_ad.htm
Click to expand...

So it's not only unworthy of impeachment, it's acceptable (whatever that means). And I'm sure Republicans would agree it's acceptable for anyone regardless of party. So if a Democrat were to ask China for help, then that would be perfectly fine.
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
Maybe the cowardly establishment leaders will fall in line with their base.

A tweet from PollingReport.com



So it's not only unworthy of impeachment, it's acceptable (whatever that means). And I'm sure Republicans would agree it's acceptable for anyone regardless of party. So if a Democrat were to ask China for help, then that would be perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

The outrage from the GOP if Obama had done exactly the same thing would have been incredible...and rightly so. But he didn't. Because he is not Trump.
 
Meadmaker said:
There doesn't appear to be a "smoking gun" there, but I think it shows just how sleazy the whole operation was.
Click to expand...

The closest to a smoking gun is perhaps the letter from Giuliani saying that he's working in a private capacity as Trump's personal lawyer, when the main defence of Trump's actions has been that this was a normal diplomatic process in his role as POTUS, done for the sake of America.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The closest to a smoking gun is perhaps the letter from Giuliani saying that he's working in a private capacity as Trump's personal lawyer, when the main defence of Trump's actions has been that this was a normal diplomatic process in his role as POTUS, done for the sake of America.
Click to expand...

I agree. I can't recall any other case when a President's personal lawyer was involved in dealing with anything at all related to foreign policy, and if there is something illegal going on here, that's it. I think if the Democrats could drive home the fact that we had an actual foreign policy being conducted by the President in his official capacity, and meanwhile we had the President conducting private business using his personal lawyer, and the two were intertwined, I think more people would see that this was something that ought not be allowed.

I still don't think it would get a conviction in the Senate, but I think it could at least be a politically winning issue.
 
Meadmaker said:
Boy who cried wolf.

Sooner or later they'll uncover something actually worth impeaching a president for. If it's your fourth try, your audience (the voters) won't care.
Click to expand...

Of course there is nothing that actually meets that criteria so why bother to pretend anything he did could lose his supporters?
 
Meadmaker said:
I still don't think it would get a conviction in the Senate, but I think it could at least be a politically winning issue.
Click to expand...

I think the first battle is to get witnesses called. If that can be made to happen, then that may start to give people a push.

I still don't count a conviction as likely, but I do think that there are signs of the needle being moved very slightly in that direction - at least with 3 Republican senators publicly saying that they'd vote in favour of witnesses. That doesn't mean that they will, and 3 wouldn't be enough for it to happen, but it's a small amount of movement in the right direction.
 
Armitage72 said:
I've yet to hear them explain how promoting the Vice President chosen in the 2016 election is overturning the 2016 election. They sound like the people who thought that proving President Obama wasn't really a citizen would have made McCain President.
Click to expand...



They don't "sound like" those people; by and large, they are those people. I'd bet large amounts of money that just about 100% of Birthers voted Trump.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I think the first battle is to get witnesses called. If that can be made to happen, then that may start to give people a push.

I still don't count a conviction as likely, but I do think that there are signs of the needle being moved very slightly in that direction - at least with 3 Republican senators publicly saying that they'd vote in favour of witnesses. That doesn't mean that they will, and 3 wouldn't be enough for it to happen, but it's a small amount of movement in the right direction.
Click to expand...

The House can have hearings, summon witnesses, and make public the proceedings whenever they want. They don't even need to do an impeachment, to do this.

Removing the president depends on the Senate's cooperation. Publicizing evidence does not.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Reminds me of George Costanza and "was I not supposed to do that?" defense of having sex with the cleaning lady on his desk at work.
Click to expand...

No my guess is that we're going to see the first official version of the "I agree that the thing is wrong, but I'm gonna hold my breath and stomp my feet like a child if you try actually act on that because you can't define to my (impossible) satisfaction the exact kind of wrong and within what exact framework he's wrong."

We've seen our major Trumpers fall back on the "He's not wrong until we can define the exact kind of wrong he is" argument. This is the final form of it.

The problem with the idea, other then it just being goddamn insane, that Abuse of Power isn't an impeachable offense is that it's also not an arrestable offense or an indictable offense or a sueable offense or (insert any and all other possible ways you could actually stop the President from doing it...)
 
JoeMorgue said:
No my guess is that we're going to see the first official version of the "I agree that the thing is wrong, but I'm gonna hold my breath and stomp my feet like a child if you try actually act on that because you can't define to my (impossible) satisfaction the exact kind of wrong and within what exact framework he's wrong."

We've seen our major Trumpers fall back on the "He's not wrong until we can define the exact kind of wrong he is" argument. This is the final form of it.

The problem with the idea, other then it just being goddamn insane, that Abuse of Power isn't an impeachable offense is that it's also not an arrestable offense or an indictable offense or a sueable offense or (insert any and all other possible ways you could actually stop the President from doing it...)
Click to expand...

This nation was created by a violent revolution against a ruler who abused his power. That was the official justification, anyway.
 
"We have to let the voters decide whether or not Trump is guilty of abusing his power to influence the election" is where they are gonna wind up isn't it? And like... the irony won't even be lost of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom