Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[nonameelf]

Well, apparently you got your wish. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3...ent-power-play

Not really another option considering McConnell already stated publicly that it wasn't going to be a fair trial.

[Orbitus]

Not really another option considering McConnell already stated publicly that it wasn't going to be a fair trial.

So has Lindsey Graham. Pretty much all Republicans don't care about the facts.

[starlord]

it will drive trump up the wall to have this hanging over his head indefinitely.

[Yoshingo]

This is who she really is. She is an opportunist. She is a grifter. She has believes really wacky things. She has found little currency on the left. So she's going to grift off the right as a liberal-who-turned.

And they'll eat it up, because they love their grifters.

Sounds like all those people in 2015/2016 on youtube who touted how they were "classical liberals" and got a few years of notoriety and ad revenue off of the back of it. Only for their fans to realize years later (And plenty of people to realize immediately) they were just conservatives who were lying.

Notice how most of Tulsi's defenders are those same youtubers lol

~~~~~~~~~~~

I was watching MSNBC (I think? That or CNN) and I heard an interesting idea that I sadly think is true: All trump has left is to try and salvage his reputation. If he was, at any point, wavering on not running in 2020, this cemented him doing so. The one and only thing he cares about is himself and his reputation, even if he can reasonably lie about it to make himself seem better.

But he can't lie about being impeached. So now he's going to desperately try to win in 2020 to redeem his reputation in the eyes of himself and his preschoolers. Political analysts have often predicted Trump would try to get us into some kind of War to help his reelection efforts in 2020 and I'm worried thats becoming more likely. Especially that he's now been successfully impeached.

[cubby]

it will drive trump up the wall to have this hanging over his head indefinitely.

And if Trump was expecting "vindication" quickly after his impeachment, Nancy is going to troll him for weeks under the very legitimate call for a fair trial.

It will drive him nuts. I just hope he doesn't stroke out before he loses the 2020 election.

[Yoshingo]

I absolutely hated that the media were immediately willing to all just use Republican talking points during the press conference with Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders, acting as if they were at fault for not just blanket promising they were going to send the articles to the Senate asap. I could see Pelosi also getting frustrated and it just goes to show you how diabolically and skillfully conservatives have managed to corrupt the discourse around this topic. It was the perfect example to demonstrate how worthless the political media has become, not interested in the truth but a headline.

Luckily in terms of actual people and not media organizations, it seems to be that the only people who bought the Republicans' attempt to corrupt the discourse about the impeachment itself are Trump's toadies who wouldn't change their minds anyway. Hopefully when Trump and the Republicans start whining about Pelosi not immediately sending the impeachment articles to the Senate (Where it will surely die without some kind of promise of a fair trial), the Democrats have an equally good response to that as they have to the myriad of whining complaints about the impeachment thusfar.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Is that why the vote happened along party lines and 2 Democrats voted no and one is swapping parties? All House Democrats care about is further dividing the country.

It's hilarious how self-unaware this is. All of these Trumpkins crying that Democrats are the ones being partisan while pointing out the vote was along party lines as if it's some kind of proof that it's Democrats being partisan and Republicans just doing the right thing.

The only ones who have made this a partisan shit show are the Republicans. Nixxon spied on candidates at the watergate hotel, almost got impeached, and resigned because his Republican colleagues told him they were going to remove him, recognizing the abuse of power that had been done. What Trump has done is blatantly against the constitution. Republicans could have either kept their honor and backed impeachment/removal, or said "Nah bruh, we're going to ignore the constitution and turn this into a partisan shit show by crying about the process and not actually trying to prove what Trump did wasn't wrong."

It's mind boggling levels of lack of self awareness when you call the other party partisan because of a vote along party lines, when Republicans have already vowed not to remove Trump BEFORE EVEN REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE. I realize once you've drunk the Trump kool-aid, everything is the Democrat's fault, but if the jurors of a trial came in before either side made their case and just said "Yeah we're gonna vote not guilty" it would be a mistrial and they'd find a new jury who could do their jobs.

The party that claims it is for law and order has fallen to lawlessness and partisan hackery to protect a golden idol.

But don't worry, even if Trump wins in 2020, he may be the first president to be impeached twice, or even three times, since he just can't stop himself from committing criminal acts.

[Shaqur]

And... Cue the deadlock.
This is not passing in senate.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You know what's really surreal @Skroe? Years ago, even decades ago, Democrats and Republicans mostly argued over political division of issues. Abortion rights, gay marriage, taxes, war, social safety nets, social security, medicare, medicaid, you know, all of the stuff that was just normal political back-and-forth in the pre-Trump era. It could get heated sometimes, but the discussions were mostly civil and mostly just "Well that's your opinion and this is mine". And they were right. How to run a country the best way is mostly a matter of opinion. Each side could present evidence that their method was the "best" and people would vote on it. Hell, pre Reagan, you would often have mixed votes on various issues because there were left leaning Republicans and blue dog Democrats. Votes in the 40's 50's and 60's looked a lot more purple even if they just narrowly passed.

But in the era of Trump, the two sides are those who honor the constitution, and those who don't. We're seeing many former Republicans turning against Trumpism, we are seeing many current Republicans trying to remove the sickness that is Trumpism from their own party. And of course we applaud these people. This is no longer about opinions on running the country. The very fabric of our country's laws, the very earth upon which it was founded, the constitution, is the center piece of political discussion.

Everywhere, Democrats are pointing out how Donald Trump blatantly violated the constitution. The Republican defensive line? Attacking the process, attacking Hillary, attacking Biden, distracting, deflecting, they are doing everything but disagreeing with the fact that Trump violated the constitution. When there is the off moment that they claim to deny the constitutional violation, the exact wording of the constitution that demonstrates Trump's lawlessness is placed in front of them, and they go back to their deflections.

I never thought I'd see the day when politics went from simple opinions on policy to one side blatantly denying the existence of passages in the constitution. But of course you can go the route of @Connal who always uses the argument "Nothing is certain, everything is subjective, the reality I experience is different from your reality".

You can lead a Trumpkin to the constitution. You can make them read the constitution line by line. You can point out where Trump's actions directly violate those parts of the constitution in plain english. And it seems their response to this undeniable truth is... "Well my version of reality is different and I choose to ignore constitutional law".

I mostly celebrate with you. Trump has been hamstrung. He is a lame duck with a limp dick. He has no power. Foreign nations will not touch him for fear of getting embroiled within US political crossfire or in some Trump scandal. What little power he had to set policy is all gone. And even knowing all of this, and accepting that he might be reelected in 2020, Trump will probably try to set new records for being the only president impeached a second and third time.

My one worry is, with so many Americans denying the constitution, denying the existence of its plain language, with Republican politicians blatantly ignoring the constitution, what happens if one of Trump's future actions is a dissolution of the constitution? Or a few choice amendments? I don't think he's smart enough to pull it off. But that is where Republics go to die, the people denying the very fabric that is the framework for the system of laws. When the blueprints for our code of laws are used as toilet paper by Republicans, who swear they will never remove Trump, what's to say that they will not push the boundaries of breaking constitutional law, knowing they can get away with it. When very basic reality is completely rejected, that is the threat. And for as much as certain philosophical grand standers who like to look down their nose at Democrats claim, there is no reasoning with these people who deny basic reality. It has been attempted, and failed at every turn.

[Shalcker]

Whats Tulsi's play?

She isn't running for reelection. She isn't going to be president. She'll probably take a Fox News job but why even show up if you're going to pull some bull? She isn't even good at her own shenanigans.

From NBCNews
"After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no," she said in a lengthy statement issued immediately after her vote was cast.

"I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing," she added.

"I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."

[Pendulous]

"he's guilty, but I don't wanna vote for it because it might look bias. Even though he's guilty"

--Someone who has authority for whatever reason

[Shalcker]

Personally, i think Trump will wear impeachment as badge of honor (while also obviously saying he was "totally exonerated" by Senate).

Because that will keep him in history books as "impeached president" rather then for everything else he did.

And with biggest guns already fired, he'll coast through his second term when all his immigration policies will start hitting Republican-stuffed Supreme Court.

[Kaleredar]

From NBCNews
"After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no," she said in a lengthy statement issued immediately after her vote was cast.

"I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing," she added.

"I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."

So, a stupid nonsense reason, as we surmised.

Glad we got that settled.

[Shalcker]

"he's guilty, but I don't wanna vote for it because it might look bias. Even though he's guilty"

--Someone who has authority for whatever reason

Impeachment is supposed to be bipartisan. Even if it would take years, result should look self-evident even to those who would defend him.

But noone wants to make such effort nowadays. Less then three months and everyone is done.

[Kaleredar]

Impeachment is supposed to be bipartisan.

According to what?

Point out the line in the constitution that outlines impeachment where it highlights the necessity of "bipartisan" agreement; I don't believe it exists.

Or are you a constitutional scholar, educated in the ways of the American constitution, who has some clout to speak on the matter?

I'll wait. Because if it's neither, then your opinion on the matter is less sound than an on-fire Russian aircraft carrier.

Even if it would take years, result should look self-evident even to those who would defend him.

If you're bringing up a mafia boss on criminal charges, do you stock almost half the jury with his goons? No, of course not. But that's the jury, as it were, that entered into these impeachment proceedings. Meaning that I care very little about what the mafia boss' cronies think of their boss' innocence.

[Zaktar]

Not really? It just requires enough votes in the Senate and the House.

- - - Updated - - -



Also a bullshit reason. The first impeachment of a president in US history took exactly 3 days... which is much shorter than the 3 months republicans are moaning about.

Oh then this took too long, sorry, our bad. Oh wait it was fast? Then it was too fast. Did you say it was slow, then my god, must be fake news if it took this long to get done - if there was real evidence it would have been done quic--oh it was fast? Total miscarriage of justice, obviously partisan play at work to have been so fast.

This business of holding the articles of impeachment is extremely interesting. I'm not too clear on what the plan at work is. Given how unlikely McConnell is to bend to this, given that Trump actually seems to want this result, it seems like the plan is to just dig in and hold removal over his head all the way through the election, a sort of doom of damocles piece of voting propaganda. Hope it helps. It would be pretty hard to complain about this as partisan after McConnell rather brashly talked about coordinating the trial with the White House, a move roughly equivalent to whipping out a copy of the constitution, dropping trou, and wiping your ass with it.

[nonameelf]

Impeachment is supposed to be bipartisan. Even if it would take years, result should look self-evident even to those who would defend him.

But noone wants to make such effort nowadays. Less then three months and everyone is done.

It was bipartisan. Both Democrats and Republicans participated in it.

[Pendulous]

Impeachment is supposed to be bipartisan. Even if it would take years, result should look self-evident even to those who would defend him.

But noone wants to make such effort nowadays. Less then three months and everyone is done.

The Republicans have literally fucking said they refuse to look at the evidence, and refuse to let people testify.

[Eviscero]

Impeachment is supposed to be bipartisan. Even if it would take years, result should look self-evident even to those who would defend him.

But noone wants to make such effort nowadays. Less then three months and everyone is done.

Bipartisianship can only exist if both sides engage in a good faith debate based on an agreed set of facts. Republicans are no longer willing or able to do this in the age of Trump.

You wouldn't understand this, since you exist in a terrifying world where the facts are whatever your leader says they are. Your eyes lie to you, don't trust them, trust your ruler. Trump and Trumphadis seek your world. This is why this impeachment vote was not bipartisan.

Please don't respond.

[Shalcker]

Not really? It just requires enough votes in the Senate and the House.

Just like US President doesn't really have to be competent (or appoint competent people), he only needs enough votes in key states.

Also a bullshit reason. The first impeachment of a president in US history took exactly 3 days... which is much shorter than the 3 months republicans are moaning about.

And it failed to remove him just like this one.

- - - Updated - - -

According to what?

That's what you would need to actually remove president.

Which is what impeachment is supposed to be about. Not "making moral stand".

- - - Updated - - -

It was bipartisan. Both Democrats and Republicans participated in it.

I mean bipartisan consensus on results, not "bipartisan participation in proceedings".