House surprisingly fails to impeach President

[PACOX]

Its like its know that this is only the first round of perhaps many.

[Mormolyce]

yeah - But here is the kicker, we have no evidence of this. - Feel free to mentally insert the 'Yet'.

We absolutely have evidence of this. The firing of James Comey.

I think you're really misusing the term "evidence". Evidence doesn't mean a conviction.

[Gestopft]

"Surprising," yes. It's too soon. The investigations are still ongoing, and there isn't GoP support for what needs to be a bipartisan process. Trump is completely deserving of impeachment, but it can't happen yet.

[Reinhard von Lohengramm]

There should be a limit to the amount of times an Impeachment Vote can be done in a term.

To prevent stupid, whiny shit like this from happening "DRUMPF SAID MEAN THINGS!!!"

Sure, if Mueller provides sufficient evidence, go ahead. But Al Green and Maxine Waters are not Robert Mueller, they're just emotional crybabies trying to get some attention and wasting everyones time doing so.

[Sky High]

they should copy the GOP and try to ram it through 60 times like they tried with the ACA. at least they can claim they're looking out for their constituents /snicker

[Grapemask]

they should copy the GOP and try to ram it through 60 times like they tried with the ACA. at least they can claim they're looking out for their constituents /snicker

Nah, that only works favorably for the GOP. Despite what the righties like to claim, democrats don't have the well-oiled propaganda machine that the right does. By round 3, even CNN would fracture from the pack and start headlining "DEMOCRAT UNHEALTHY OBSESSION WITH POINTLESS BATTLE???"

[Sky High]

Nah, that only works favorably for the GOP. Despite what the righties like to claim, democrats don't have the well-oiled propaganda machine that the right does. By round 3, even CNN would fracture from the pack and start headlining "DEMOCRAT UNHEALTHY OBSESSION WITH POINTLESS BATTLE???"

I know, they're so bad at their jobs.

[Mormolyce]

Welp I guess that's it, Russia thing's over. Kek.

There should be a limit to the amount of times an Impeachment Vote can be done in a term.

I can't see any legitimate reason for that.

[Reinhard von Lohengramm]

I can't see any legitimate reason for that.

That's a failing of reading comprehension on your part.

[Mormolyce]

That's a failing of reading comprehension on your part.

What do you think I misinterpreted?

[Grapemask]

That's a failing of reading comprehension on your part.

That would be a terrible thing to do.

Imagine if President Hitler II gets elected. They try to impeach him when he abolishes some important oversight in his first year, but some folks hem and haw and they don't get the votes. Then 18 months down the road, he takes the nation to war and starts a second Holocaust. Sorry guys, can't impeach him now, we hit our limit.

Or in terms closer to what most folks themselves may interact with; imagine if the police are deciding whether they're going to formally charge a suspect with the evidence they have. It doesn't get enough support, so now they're not allowed to try to press charges for X years. Guy visibly commits more crimes, perhaps because he cannot be charged due to said clause.

It's valid to say that you cannot/should not impeach a president a second time for the same charges, if the first reached the Senate trial and the president was acquitted. That's basic double jeopardy. But that's different.

[Lenonis]

There should be a limit to the amount of times an Impeachment Vote can be done in a term.

Great plan. No way to abuse that idea in the slightest. No way that could go wrong.

[Ripster42]

The fact that it is sufficiently undefined to include anything, does not mean that it would be appropriate to use it for anything.

And yet, in english common law, where the phrase came from, incompetence is a high crime and misdemeanor, especially in relation to who they hire. You know, like flynn for national security advisor after the obama warning.

[Reinhard von Lohengramm]

That would be a terrible thing to do.

Imagine if President Hitler II gets elected. They try to impeach him when he abolishes some important oversight in his first year, but some folks hem and haw and they don't get the votes. Then 18 months down the road, he takes the nation to war and starts a second Holocaust. Sorry guys, can't impeach him now, we hit our li

Bolded: Godwin's, really?

In all honesty it's probably a bad idea the way I articulated it, but not for the reasons you suggest. I would suggest a limit, perhaps a time limit (once per year/6 months) or a hard limit (8 a term) but one would be really extreme. In your situation however it just seems like Democracy at work. If removing those important oversights were impeachment worthy, initiate the vote. "Hem and Haw" sounds more like "it wasn't impeachment worthy" than anything else, kind of like Trump's 'Two scoops' or his reaction to the NFL kneelers. It's a serious procedure and it should be handled with sincerity.

For the record I imagine a situation where controlled opposition issues a multitude of Impeachment Votes to drain the count before initiating an agenda. In that situation a limit would be negative.

[Ripster42]

Bolded: Godwin's, really?
.

Didn't the person who came up with godwin's law essentially say that trump defending the charlottesville shit heads that godwin's law no longer applies to trump because he's actually supporting nazis?

[Mormolyce]

Bolded: Godwin's, really?

In all honesty it's probably a bad idea the way I articulated it, but not for the reasons you suggest. I would suggest a limit, perhaps a time limit (once per year/6 months) or a hard limit (8 a term) but one would be really extreme. In your situation however it just seems like Democracy at work. If removing those important oversights were impeachment worthy, initiate the vote. "Hem and Haw" sounds more like "it wasn't impeachment worthy" than anything else, kind of like Trump's 'Two scoops' or his reaction to the NFL kneelers. It's a serious procedure and it should be handled with sincerity.

For the record I imagine a situation where controlled opposition issues a multitude of Impeachment Votes to drain the count before initiating an agenda. In that situation a limit would be negative.

It's almost like you're proposing a form of double jeopardy that applies to the person rather than the crime. If you can't see the flaw with that I can't help you.

[Reinhard von Lohengramm]

Didn't the person who came up with godwin's law essentially say that trump defending the charlottesville shit heads that godwin's law no longer applies to trump because he's actually supporting nazis?

The Left's over usage of Saul Alinsky's Rules are well known.
Paint the opposition

It's almost like you're proposing a form of double jeopardy that applies to the person rather than the crime. If you can't see the flaw with that I can't help you.

I will admit the idea of Impeachment limits was an idea I listed in crude detail.
On the other hand if you're going to try and get an impeachment vote for Obstruction of Justice, then wait until Mueller or someone else (with authority, not a news network...) delivers the evidence - not before.
If you're going to go ahead and try go get it done over Trump being an ass and saying "mean things on Twitter" or voicing an opinion about a cultural phenomena then screw off and stop wasting time.

[Mormolyce]

I will admit the idea of Impeachment limits was an idea I listed in crude detail.
On the other hand if you're going to try and get an impeachment vote for Obstruction of Justice, then wait until Mueller or someone else (with authority, not a news network...) delivers the evidence - not before.
If you're going to go ahead and try go get it done over Trump being an ass and saying "mean things on Twitter" or voicing an opinion about a cultural phenomena then screw off and stop wasting time.

There is no legal need for them to wait for anything, there is already plenty of evidence of impeachable offences - Congress doesn't need a criminal conviction or even recommended charges to impeach. The only reason they're mostly waiting for the outcome of the Mueller inquiry is that they don't currently have the numbers and they expect the outcome will give them enough. Just realpolitik as you would put it.

[Reinhard von Lohengramm]

There is no legal need for them to wait for anything, there is already plenty of evidence of impeachable offences - Congress doesn't need a criminal conviction or even recommended charges to impeach. The only reason they're mostly waiting for the outcome of the Mueller inquiry is that they don't currently have the numbers and they expect the outcome will give them enough. Just realpolitik as you would put it.

Debatable
Yet the vote failed.

Therefore, your argument:

[Ripster42]

The Left's over usage of Saul Alinsky's Rules are well known.
Paint the opposition

You were just talking about godwin. I was just talking about how the guy who made up the rule says it doesn't apply here.

- - - Updated - - -

Debatable
Yet the vote failed.

The vote failing does nothing to his argument. You're pretty bad at this. The only thing the vote says is that congress doesn't currently believe removing the president over his transgressions is currently politically expedient.