Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Noxx79]

Congratulations on your meaningless one-sided impeachment that you couldn't even hold your caucus intact for. Worse case scenario, you will always have this and what a beauty it is to behold. When you think back on the years that your party was completely out of power and was the political equivalent of a cuckold, you'll at least have this amazing achievement to look back on fondly and stave off the depression.


Infracted.

You’re a “veteran” who supports a president that admits he stole about $2 million intended for veterans and put it into his campaign. You sure know a lot about being cucked from experience.

Trumps theft alone is worthy of impeachment, but it took place before he was president, and we all know you guys think the worlds started in January 2017, and nothing before
actually happened. This stuff will be hammered out slowly and methodically until you and your fellow trump supporters will have no choice but to accept reality or be shunned as delusional. It may take years, but you’re on your way out.

[Zaktar]

Yeah I agree that McConnell doesn't actually have any reason to hold a vote to end any holdover of the articles. Only reason I was pointing out what he could do was to dispel the notion that Pelosi had any leverage or that she was making big brain plays.

Well she does have leverage, the leverage is that in order to take up the trial without her appointing the managers, McConnell would have to upend years of precedent and formally established rules, as if he didn't already look enough like a stooge of the white house. The constitution isn't the only document which governs this process, it's just the one which is most difficult to change.

[cubby]

Thanks for quoting the unedited version. The Constitution is your source, and you're free to take my word for it or go actually read it for yourself. I recommend the latter approach but I doubt you'll take advantage of this opportunity to grow in your understanding of how our government actually works.

It's my fault you changed it after I quoted it?

Meanwhile - we're still waiting for a cite for your opinion on the Articles. So far you seem to be the only one saying that, which makes you a pretty terrific "primary source" (lol).

And double meanwhile, where is Moscow Mitch on voting on those Articles? Has he changed his mind and decided to be impartial? Or is still set on violating his oath as a Senator?

[starlord]

Yeah I agree that McConnell doesn't actually have any reason to hold a vote to end any holdover of the articles. Allowing the Democrats to delay the process is actually advantageous for multiple reasons. Only reason I was pointing out what he could do was to dispel the notion that Pelosi had any leverage or that she was making big brain plays.

ah well you certainly wouldn't want anyone to think that.

basically she is giving more leverage to schumer.

Pelosi said she can’t name impeachment managers — the House Democrats who will essentially serve as prosecutors in the Senate trial — until she knows the terms of the proceedings.

“When we see the process that is set forth in the Senate, then we’ll know the number of managers that we may have to go forward and who we will choose,” Pelosi said.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...-senate-087936

[cubby]

Again, you're asking me for my "source" on my own direct reading of the Constitution about impeachment. You're not making any sense, and I think you're fully aware that you're not making any sense. This isn't one of those times that you can just repeatedly screech for an article, it's right in the text of the document you all repeatedly used to justify this biased impeachment process.

Alternatively, you can find me the requirement that the Senate has to "receive" the articles, since you seem to be taking that at face value without any evidence with no protest to your desire to have a source on everything. Here's a hint, there is no requirement.

Do you not understand that your opinion on this matter is not only worthless, it's a lie? Nancy Pelosi is holding back the Articles for now. The Senate can't vote on them until they are delivered. My source on this is the United States Speaker of the House. You citing yourself again is lying. It means you know you can't back it, so you know you're wrong, but just can't admit it.

Meanwhile, Statesman Pelosi is gearing up for the next battle with Moscow Mitch in the Impeachment and Trial process.

[Zaktar]

The Senate will vote on the rules of the impeachment process regardless. There will be changes, and it's just as easy to protect their "sole power" (borrowing a line of the Democrats) to try the President by changing them if necessary. Hence, Pelosi can pack sand and she knows it.

It would not be easy at all to make a change as significant as what you're talking about, nor would it be guaranteed to pass a simple majority vote. Far easier would be negotiating with the House with that option as plan D.

[Xeones]

Yeah I agree that McConnell doesn't actually have any reason to hold a vote to end any holdover of the articles. Allowing the Democrats to delay the process is actually advantageous for multiple reasons. Only reason I was pointing out what he could do was to dispel the notion that Pelosi had any leverage or that she was making big brain plays.

Nope, what you were saying was pretty much ignoring that rule.

Changing the senate rules to make it so he could do what you suggest would be a battle that probably wouldn't play will with the public.

[LeGin Tufnel]

Sorry to butt in...

Impeachment is limited to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"?

I'm trying to understand how this process is entirely separate from the implementation of federal & state laws.

[cubby]

You clearly aren't reading the thread carefully. At least 3 people have conceded what I've said is technically true.

Even if I agree with you it wouldn't matter. Remember when you were confused about a primary source? That's what we're looking for here. Struggling with evidence has always been an issue for you, so it's ok if you're confused about the ask here. Let us know if you need any more help understanding this issue.

Meanwhile - there is more talk about holding off delivering the Articles until after most of the Senate primaries are over, giving the GOP Senators room to vote their conscience.

[Zaktar]

I changed it 12 minutes before you quoted it. I actually caught my own mistake before Endus even called me out on it. You clearly aren't reading the thread carefully. At least 3 people have conceded what I've said is technically true.

Obviously they had quoted it and took their time in writing out a response, or got distracted. Is this really worth discussion?

[Xeones]

Sorry to butt in...

Impeachment is limited to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"?

I'm trying to understand how this process is entirely separate from the implementation of federal & state laws.

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

Also the only people who ever try to assert that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means "Crimes on the legal books" are people who are currently having the guy they like impeached.

[starlord]

You're just repeating yourself and not actually addressing what I've said. It's pretty sad that I have to constantly stop conversing with you because you get caught up in these (il)logical loops that you can't get yourself out of.

Multiple other people in the thread have agreed that the Senate doesn't technically have to wait on the House. This means that Pelosi is full of hot air in claiming that she's going to get anything out of holding back the articles other than hurting herself. She can hold them back indefinitely and I assure you that Mitch will eventually hold a vote to acquit when the time is right. So at this point, it's nothing but false posturing meant to drum up polls and donations heading into the recess. The Senate will make no significant concessions to the Democrats that will affect any outcome, just the same as the Democrats did in the House. Statesman Pelosi will be lucky to survive "the Squad" and other leftist coalitions going into the elections.

you are correct that it is posturing. its all a giant game of chicken & if mcconnell does as you suggest, he loses.
perhaps not in your eyes, but the public's as well as his party losing leverage in any similar matter in the future.

[cubby]

You're just repeating yourself and not actually addressing what I've said. It's pretty sad that I have to constantly stop conversing with you because you get caught up in these (il)logical loops that you can't get yourself out of.

Multiple other people in the thread have agreed that the Senate doesn't technically have to wait on the House. This means that Pelosi is full of hot air in claiming that she's going to get anything out of holding back the articles other than hurting herself. She can hold them back indefinitely and I assure you that Mitch will eventually hold a vote to acquit when the time is right. So at this point, it's nothing but false posturing meant to drum up polls and donations heading into the recess. The Senate will make no significant concessions to the Democrats that will affect any outcome, just the same as the Democrats did in the House. Statesman Pelosi will be lucky to survive "the Squad" and other leftist coalitions going into the elections.

If you're still confused about what a primary source is, I'm happy to further explain it. No one on this forum's opinion counts as evidence, nor is a primary source on the topic of impeachment. Many people on this thread have explained this basic tenet of discussion. But we're here to help if you still need it.

Meanwhile, Moscow Mitch is frothing at the mouth to blow off Trump and get the speedy-bias trial started and done with. I love that he's already violating an oath he's yet to take.

[LeGin Tufnel]

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

Also the only people who ever try to assert that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means "Crimes on the legal books" are people who are currently having the guy they like impeached.

OK, sure - so it's removal from office.

So e.g., Claiborne was convicted for tax evasion prior to his impeachment and removal from office.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...08280207011841

Cool. So Trump isn't in any way drumming up further divisions and anger and teeing up his base for violent reactions. Not at all.

This is totally normal behavior from a president. Totally fine. Not outrageous or dangerous at all.

[Flarelaine]

Sorry to butt in...

Impeachment is limited to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"?

I'm trying to understand how this process is entirely separate from the implementation of federal & state laws.

It is separate because law enforcement has declared the president untouchable.

[Belize]

It is separate because law enforcement has declared the president untouchable.

Which is one of the most idiotic thing in American law.

Of all the things to steal from the Roman Senate, legal immunity if not politically removed first is easily the worst thing they could have done.

[Kujako]

It's not idiotic. If you think it through, you'd know why. Our government would break down if every accusation against a President was handled the same way it is for a normal citizen. In today's climate, any given President would be in office for all of 5 minutes before a paid crisis actor accuses them of rape 30 years ago and they are forced to step down to go through investigations and court proceedings. That's why it's important to be careful who you vote for.

Always funny to see Trumpeters arguing that Clinton shouldn't have been Impeached, thanks for the laugh.

[cubby]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...08280207011841

Cool. So Trump isn't in any way drumming up further divisions and anger and teeing up his base for violent reactions. Not at all.

This is totally normal behavior from a president. Totally fine. Not outrageous or dangerous at all.

It's unbelievable how much of an unhinged person he is overall. His Impeachment is just bringing out severe versions of his debasing personality. I'll be interested to see how is mental health continues to diminish as this process slowly moves forward. It seems Statesman Pelosi is going to be trolling him over the holidays.

[Endus]

It's not idiotic. If you think it through, you'd know why. Our government would break down if every accusation against a President was handled the same way it is for a normal citizen.

Saying it's necessary because your system of government is a house of cards that would collapse when threatened is . . . not a strong argument.

The normal solution anywhere else would be to ensure government was strong enough to stand regardless of the President's poor conduct.

In Canada, the Prime Minister can be charged with a crime at any time. If they are, they're removed from office (both as PM and as an elected MP), and a by-election is called for their riding. Note that this occurs when charges are filed, not after conviction.

The party forming the government has an internal vote to pick a new PM, and if the PM was arrested at 9am on a Monday, there's a new PM running the show by noon that same Monday, in theory. In practice, it can take longer, because the PM isn't even that critically necessary a role, and government can get on just fine for a week or two without one, giving time for some internal jockeying and negotiating.

We don't have any law granting immunity to the Prime Minister because our system is strong enough that the Prime Minister's arrest won't cause the government to collapse in the first place. If that's not true for the USA, congratulations, you've figured out the weakness underlying the problem, and how immunity for the President is a band-aid that doesn't actually fix the problem.

In today's climate, any given President would be in office for all of 5 minutes before a paid crisis actor accuses them of rape 30 years ago and they are forced to step down to go through investigations and court proceedings. That's why it's important to be careful who you vote for.

Wild conspiracy claims really aren't arguments, no matter how pleased you are with your own imagination.