Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[wunksta]

And also, that's how politics works. As McConnell himself has said in the past, "Elections have consequences." They can work together if the climate is right for bipartisan support, but it's anything but right now. And the people have elected a Republican Senate and the Republican Senate Majority Leader is pushing back on progressive bills. When the next Democratic Senate is control, voted in by the people, they will pursue a political strategy that favors the left wing. And if the public doesn't like any of it at any time, they get a chance to vote.

Republicans used to be a big proponent of protecting the environment. The Bush administration helped pass the Cap & Trade Acid Rain bill , for example. Enacting climate change policy isn't being progressive or partisan, it's facing reality.

[draynay]

Enacting climate change policy isn't being progressive or partisan, it's facing reality.

Republicans have made reality a partisan issue.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Exactly. The idea of Republicans finding a way of "curing cancer" is like claiming a Neo-Nazi will find a way to bring world peace.

...now that I wrote it that way, it's probably the way they would do it! They'd probably legalize euthanasia of sick people to save on expenses! >_<

I mean, in case you didn't know, that's exactly what happened in WW2. At first the Nazis were simply putting Jews, gays, etc. in concentration camps and making them work. But they filled the concentration camps so much, the camps were running out of food constantly and overflowing with human bodies and shit. It's a big reason why they began making death camps, to get rid of all the excess people that were costing them money to keep imprisoned.

A lot of Trumpkins tend to not know their WW2 history that well, and simply believe Hitler just started killing jews for the hell of it, or because he hated Jews, and while that was part of it, it was a huge mix of issues, many of which we are seeing as Mexicans get piled into concentration camps.

[Mormolyce]

So you are going to talk about only the past and not current events of this century. ok boomer. Look at my post history where I said impeaching Clinton was wrong. And if you want to bring up the founding fathers, they were worried that 1 party would use the impeachment as a weapon. Well low and behold, against Pelosi's own words, a partisan impeachment. Thanks for not derailing the thread with more inane pronouncements about the past and ignoring current events.
[Infraction]

It's "lo and behold". "Lo" is an archaic interjection.

Republicans made impeachment a partisan issue in the 90s, and so now they can claim every impeachment is partisan regardless of how justified it is. "Hey look we Republicans are voting as a bloc against it - must be partisan!". Acting in bad faith as usual.

- - - Updated - - -

If the Republicans came up with a way to cure cancer in 5 years wouldn't cost the taxpayer any money and was great for the environment. Democrats would say that their idea is bad simply because the Republicans are pushing it. And vice versa.

Here we go with the false equivalences again.

Both sides may be bad, but they are not equally bad, and you can't use one side being a little bit bad as some kind of weird get-out-of-jail-free card for the other side being immensely bad. It's a stupid argument. The Republicans are clearly in the wrong here, Trump should be impeached, and we can talk about whether the Democrats are big ol' meany-pantses when that's fucking relevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you really believe this? You really believe things so black and white...

Anyone who doesn't see Trump's guilt at this point is either a partisan hack or extremely ignorant. It couldn't be plainer.

- - - Updated - - -

This all a waste of time much like the Clinton impeachment. Will dead end in the Senate.

Let's agree on this - impeachment is now dead as a check on executive power. No future President will fear impeachment when partisan dishonesty has gotten to a point that people will vote down party lines even for a criminal as transparently obvious and unfit for office as Trump. Tribalistic party loyalty has completely subsumed what's good for the country. In fact this will openly encourage more outright criminal activity in future administrations. This is the end point of the road Nixon started the Republican Party on.

So the US political system is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed short of a constitutional Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

Burry your head in the sand if you will.

"Bury" has one "r".

The problem of course is that if one side is behaving in a purely disingenuous partisan manner it can then claim both sides are.

The Republicans have known for generations that they are unpopular purely on the merits of their policies, so they've been spending all of their time trying to distract everyone from any of their policy positions. They can't win in a fair fight, so they rig the game.

[Dontrike]

And also, that's how politics works. As McConnell himself has said in the past, "Elections have consequences." They can work together if the climate is right for bipartisan support, but it's anything but right now. And the people have elected a Republican Senate and the Republican Senate Majority Leader is pushing back on progressive bills. When the next Democratic Senate is control, voted in by the people, they will pursue a political strategy that favors the left wing. And if the public doesn't like any of it at any time, they get a chance to vote.

Wouldn't the voting part of it at least show that's not what people want right now rather than not voting on it? I never want to hear "voting has consequences" like that explains why Moscow Mitch is a douche.

- - - Updated - - -

Republicans used to be a big proponent of protecting the environment. The Bush administration helped pass the Cap & Trade Acid Rain bill , for example. Enacting climate change policy isn't being progressive or partisan, it's facing reality.

Apparently protecting all those hunting grounds that they love so much is too liberal for them, so now they must want to see it burned to the ground.

[cubby]

So you are going to talk about only the past and not current events of this century. ok boomer. Look at my post history where I said impeaching Clinton was wrong. And if you want to bring up the founding fathers, they were worried that 1 party would use the impeachment as a weapon. Well low and behold, against Pelosi's own words, a partisan impeachment. Thanks for not derailing the thread with more inane pronouncements about the past and ignoring current events.
[Infraction]

The only reason the Impeachment of Donald Trump is "partisan" is because the GOP has lost their moral compass. Donald Trump is objectively guilty of felony crimes (or did you forget his confession on live tv, and then his Chief of Staff's confession, on live tv? - Trumpkins have such short memories). The vote should be 100-0 in favor of Conviction. But it won't because McConnell is too interested in keeping his power rather than doing what's right for the country.

- - - Updated - - -

Loving the TRE45ON name for Trump circling around given the evidence uncovered in the House Impeachment inquiry.

[Twdft]

They have to pass SOME laws, but the fact that 400+ are stacked up on the Senate Majority Leader's desk says a lot about what's going on.

This isn't even a new thing, Jon Stewart complained about it for years on The Daily Show.

[Draco-Onis]

And also, that's how politics works. As McConnell himself has said in the past, "Elections have consequences." They can work together if the climate is right for bipartisan support, but it's anything but right now. And the people have elected a Republican Senate and the Republican Senate Majority Leader is pushing back on progressive bills. When the next Democratic Senate is control, voted in by the people, they will pursue a political strategy that favors the left wing. And if the public doesn't like any of it at any time, they get a chance to vote.

Except that a load of shit because a large portion of those bills got bipartisan support in the house and he is also killing bipartisan bills in the senate on things like election protection. McConnell is effectively Trump's shadow vetoer he keeps bills from reaching the floor of the senate to protect Trump's interest that goes counter to the whole co-equal branch of government.

The best example of Moscow Mitch's intent is the bipartisan bill that would require people to report to the FBI under criminal penalty if they are contacted by foreign agents. Tell me how this is a far left idea since it passed the house and had a bipartisan support in the senate, he isn't just killing house bills he is killing bills from his own caucus to protect Trump.

[Orbitus]

Super duper wants everyone to be able to testify, but will totally try to invoke executive privilege to stop them.

He can't assert executive privilege over a civilian, or when it comes to a crime being committed.

[Dontrike]

Super duper wants everyone to be able to testify, but will totally try to invoke executive privilege to stop them.

I'd like to hear how Trump intends to do that, but then again I'm sure Bolton won't testify, not because he wants to protect Trump more so that he just doesn't want to fucking do it.

[Levelfive]

I'd like to hear how Trump intends to do that, but then again I'm sure Bolton won't testify, not because he wants to protect Trump more so that he just doesn't want to fucking do it.

Oh I think he definitely does want to (because he has a book coming out or whatever)--he could have just as easily kept his mouth shut knowing Republicans wouldn't vote to call witnesses anyway, but he's also been looking for cover for it, either through a court order, which he volunteered for but didn't get, or a subpoena, which he also volunteered for, which puts pressure on Republicans to figure out a way to at least look like they want a fair trial.

[Beefhammer]

He can't assert executive privilege over a civilian, or when it comes to a crime being committed.

Remember the GOP believe because the witnesses didn't say bribery or extortion and quid pro quo is scary foriegn words that are not in the constitution, Trump did no wrong. So there are no crimes.

[Shadowferal]

Yeah Bolton opened his mouth for a reason.
The man has something he wants to say. If it were anything good for the gop he wouldn't say a word, let alone volunteer such a thing.

[Breccia]

He can't assert executive privilege over a civilian, or when it comes to a crime being committed.

And more importantly, the fact that he pre-existing-conditionally announced that he would, should be taken as yet another crack in the "most transparent administration ever".

Bolton said he would testify if subpoena'd. I think it's time to pull that thread.

[Endus]

Except that a load of shit because a large portion of those bills got bipartisan support in the house and he is also killing bipartisan bills in the senate on things like election protection. McConnell is effectively Trump's shadow vetoer he keeps bills from reaching the floor of the senate to protect Trump's interest that goes counter to the whole co-equal branch of government.

The best example of Moscow Mitch's intent is the bipartisan bill that would require people to report to the FBI under criminal penalty if they are contacted by foreign agents. Tell me how this is a far left idea since it passed the house and had a bipartisan support in the senate, he isn't just killing house bills he is killing bills from his own caucus to protect Trump.

Worse, if you're going to make the argument that "elections have consequences", then that means you bring those bills to a vote. If the Senate is Republican, and won't pass a bill because of ideological differences, so be it. That's the democratic process, for better or for worse.

Not bringing the bills to a vote at all demonstrates that McConnell doesn't trust that Republicans won't support those bills. Rather than rely on the "consequences" of the election, he's refusing to allow government to continue, all by himself, by fiat.

Because he's a fucking ideological coward, and he knows he doesn't have the control of Republican Senators that he likes to pretend he has. If he did, he'd bring these bills to a vote, and they'd get shot down. He knows that's not what will happen, which is why he's pulling this chickenfucking bullshit.

[cubby]

Worse, if you're going to make the argument that "elections have consequences", then that means you bring those bills to a vote. If the Senate is Republican, and won't pass a bill because of ideological differences, so be it. That's the democratic process, for better or for worse.

Not bringing the bills to a vote at all demonstrates that McConnell doesn't trust that Republicans won't support those bills. Rather than rely on the "consequences" of the election, he's refusing to allow government to continue, all by himself, by fiat.

Because he's a fucking ideological coward, and he knows he doesn't have the control of Republican Senators that he likes to pretend he has. If he did, he'd bring these bills to a vote, and they'd get shot down. He knows that's not what will happen, which is why he's pulling this chickenfucking bullshit.

Agreed. I really hope McGrath's campaign is going well. It would be insane if McConnell lost his own reelection campaign. I don't see that happening, but still, one can dream. If Trump steals a second election, but the Senate flips, and the House remains Democratic, I wonder if they'll bring more Articles.

[Tazkar]

Worse, if you're going to make the argument that "elections have consequences", then that means you bring those bills to a vote. If the Senate is Republican, and won't pass a bill because of ideological differences, so be it. That's the democratic process, for better or for worse.

Not bringing the bills to a vote at all demonstrates that McConnell doesn't trust that Republicans won't support those bills. Rather than rely on the "consequences" of the election, he's refusing to allow government to continue, all by himself, by fiat.

Because he's a fucking ideological coward, and he knows he doesn't have the control of Republican Senators that he likes to pretend he has. If he did, he'd bring these bills to a vote, and they'd get shot down. He knows that's not what will happen, which is why he's pulling this chickenfucking bullshit.

I could also see him also doing it not because he doesn't have the votes, but because most Voters won't know there is a backlog. And so there is no record of them potentially voting against something their base actually wanted because it hadn't been spun as evil socialism to them. It's still very fucking cowardly but that's kind of how everything has seemed to me. "If we don't vote they won't ever know."

[Levelfive]

The problem is the Senate won’t subpoena him. He didn’t say he’d testify to the House if subpoenaed, he said he’d testify if the Senate did.

The House can subpoena him, a possibility Schiff left open.

[Levelfive]

Which doesn’t mean he’s willing to cooperate with the house. And we’ve seen how much weight their subpoenas carry.

A couple things: Bolton is smart enough know that if he volunteers to honor a subpoena from the Senate, he can't really refuse to honor one from the House, so he was inviting one from either. Two, he also clearly wants to testify.

[Levelfive]

Sure he can. He said he’d testify if the Senate subpoenaed him for the trial. Nothing in that in anyway indicates he is willing to testify for a committee in the House. He even indicated he wouldn’t testify if the House subpoenaed him unless the courts ruled he’d have to while they were fighting those fights. Not sure why you think he cares about what you think is right.

This has nothing to do with what I think is right. You seem to think he doesn't want to testify when he quite transparently does, or that there's some difference or cost to him whether he testifies for the House or the Senate, when there's not. He was free and clear--he didn't even have to sign on to his deputy's lawsuit, but he did. If he didn't want to testify after Kupperman's case got dismissed, all he had to do was keep his mouth shut, confident that the Senate wouldn't call witnesses anyway. Instead, at the height of this particular crisis with Iran which was drowning out impeachment, he put it right back in the headlines with an announcement that he was willing to testify if subpoenaed, which gives him cover to claim he was compelled, and put the first real bit of actual pressure on Senate Republicans to call witnesses.