• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

Distracted1 said:
I might, actually.
With enough evidence presented, I would have to choose between possibly sitting someone not elected or invalidating the election itself.

Kind of makes it the perfect con for a President who doesn't wish to leave, doesn't it?
And the groundwork for it is already pretty firmly rooted.
Click to expand...

What's your solution?
 
theprestige said:
Happens how, exactly?

How does President Trump abolish term limits? He can't do it through an executive order. He can't do it by signing a bill into law (because Congress can't actually pass such a bill).
Click to expand...


Trump and some of his supporters have talked about how he deserves to have his term extended as compensation for the Witch Hunt. As usual, this shows a complete lack of knowledge of how the government actually works and a continuation of attempting to govern by the principle of "I want this. Make it happen. Now."
 
alfaniner said:
Good God, that Trump attorney Herschmann is awful.
Click to expand...

Patrick Philbin isn't all that much better. It's fairly impressive how many times they can rehash the same exact stuff.

ETA: They're doing the same complaining again. "The POTUS couldn't call any witnesses or be in attendance."

Ok, well you can do whatever now. You have the majority, call them...
 
Last edited:
Armitage72 said:
Trump and some of his supporters have talked about how he deserves to have his term extended as compensation for the Witch Hunt. As usual, this shows a complete lack of knowledge of how the government actually works and a continuation of attempting to govern by the principle of "I want this. Make it happen. Now."
Click to expand...

An amendment?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Trump is fine with the Rules and Regulations as they are - as long as he (and only he) gets to ignore him.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right for a lot of conservatives who support the law, as long as that law gives them an advantage of everyone else, and as soon as the law doesn't, they simply ignore it.
 
Armitage72 said:
Trump and some of his supporters have talked about how he deserves to have his term extended as compensation for the Witch Hunt. As usual, this shows a complete lack of knowledge of how the government actually works and a continuation of attempting to govern by the principle of "I want this. Make it happen. Now."
Click to expand...

The whole "If you try to impeach a President and fail, that President gets another term" UL is still making the rounds.

We've got the majority of Senate Republicans to swallow the "Deep State" conspiracy. This doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to me.

"No I'm not refusing the step down, I'm just not going to step down until he's satisfied the election was legitimate" is completely within the mentality and the boundaries he's already established for him self.

Again do you think Trump was playing the "The whole thing is rigged! Busing in illegals! Voting irregularities!" song over and over before the last election just because he liked the beat?

No. He was setting it up for to not go away if Hillary had won in 2016.
 
Winning -- it never gets old, although it does on occasion drive your opponents to say some pretty crazy things, as we're seeing in this thread.
 
Anyone else watching? Schiff just went off on something saying that it was "outstanding" and that Trump's team just admitted that Guiliani wasn't doing policy work. Is that something new? I missed the first part and just heard Schiff speaking about halfway through.
 
Oh new argument from Herschmann, we can't impeach Trump because his approval rating is too high.

That's a good one.
 
theprestige said:
Or he'd just refuse to step down, but that wouldn't make him a third-term president. That would just make him a non-president trespassing in the White House until the Secret Service removes him an hour later.
Click to expand...


You say that dismissively, and maybe it would (will?) happen precisely that way, but I don't think it's rational to simply ignore the possibility that:

Trump refuses to step down, saying he lost only because the election was rigged.

~40% of the population (Trump's usual stable base) agrees with the president.

Maybe some in the secret service, the military, and the federal govt side with Trump, too.



....and all of us get to deal with the ensuing, quite possibly violent, division.

I'm not trying to be all, "The sky is falling" here: It's a simple, observable fact that Trump is a whiny little bitch that could play his part in this quite readily (he already threatened to do precisely that in 2016); you'd be a fool not to at least consider the possibilities.
 
Distracted1 said:
What would be the proper response of a sitting second term President who has credible evidence that the election that just occurred was widely interfered with?

The proper thing to do in that instance would be to remain in position until an inquiry could determine the legitimacy of the election, no?
Click to expand...

Yes.
And that should not be a problem because it Will be 5 weeks between the election and the ECvote in December.. but what if President Trump were to say, “the investigation was rigged, therefore the EC vote is invalid. I will lead an investigation myself.” Large swaths of Americans have unfailingly believed his evidence-less assertions in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Will Congress contradict him?
 
theprestige said:
What's your solution?
Click to expand...


It's a bit late for my solution, but it would be:

Don't elect someone like Trump, who has so little respect for America that he would consider trying to pull something like this, in the first place.

I've managed to play my little part in enacting this solution in the past.

You, on the other hand....
 
Well they went there, not just trying to say the Steele Dossier was analogous.

But then as if that wasn't enough, they managed to bring up the faulted FISA Warrants, I had to mute it because my phone rang but I'm going to guess they suggested Obama's action was impeachable if this action by Trump is.

Maybe someone can tell me if my guess was right.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom