Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Cthulhu 2020]

Always funny how you are able to make Sulla drop all his bullshit pretense of civility @Cthulhu 2020 you truly do get under his skin

People spend far too much energy and effort responding to him. The thing about Sulla is, just get to the point, say your piece, and peace out. He's got this draconian tribalistic and hyper aggressive mindset that's far too steeped in worshiping the "strong man" archetype. He doesn't stand for justice or laws, he's just a bully, and he sees himself as some big guy running around a playground beating up all the kids with his words, when in reality to most everyone except his pals, he just looks like someone with compromised morals screaming vulgarities wherever he can in attempts to get people mad.

This impeachment has proved without a doubt how the cult personalities only keep going further down the rabbit hole. Whenever Sulla, Shalcker, or any of the far-right shit posters comes in here, they take the thread so far off topic that it's barely about impeachment any more. For awhile there we had mods very diligently keeping the discussion about what was HAPPENING in the impeachment, and the facts of the impeachment. Whenever one of their ilk come in here, they just turn it into an ego brawl. Of course the alt-right and Russia shills always think themselves the winner, but there is no winner on these forums.

As has been stated before, Trump has been impeached, and regardless of whether or not he is removed by the senate, regardless of whether or not he even wins in 2020, those are all just temporary victories for the alt-right. In the future, when Trump is no longer being protected by corrupt senators, when he no longer has executive powers against prosecution, all of his dirty secrets are going to come flying out. We will get to see that he was guilty of every crime we knew he was guilty of, and we will also probably get to see many that we probably didn't even know about. We're still learning about the war crimes and lies of Bush and Cheney years later.

Bush had a similar support cult behind him that Trump has now, but it was nowhere near as deranged as the current Trump cult. When Bush's presidency ended, and his crimes were laid bare for all to see, all of a sudden every cultist, on these forums, on every forum, everyone suddenly said they were "never a Bush supporter". And when it's proven that Trump was a liar, a thief, and a criminal, you will see Sulla, Doc Savage, and every other Trump cultist on these forums start saying they "never supported Trump" and "just wanted to make the libs mad". Because the Trump presidency is not about good policy, improving the country, saving lives, or increasing our status in the world. The Trump presidency is ultimately about the hatred the alt-right has for the left, how they despise and are angered so much by the left wing that they've elected a president entirely on the premise of "making them mad".

And that is something that will be in history books. That some Americans were so morally compromised and blinded by their rage and deep insecurities about themselves, their anxiety heading into the early 21st century, and their hatred of laws, that they supported a criminal in the white house.


Infracted.

[Flarelaine]

Please get back to factual discussion of the impeachment process, preferably without continued bickering.

[starlord]

Yes, the Senate can indeed vote on the (very public) articles of impeachment any time they want and end Pelosi's delusion that she's playing a game she can win. However, Mitch will be the one toying with her and allowing her to undermine her own committee's court fights over subpoenas by holding up the rest of the impeachment process in the Senate. Pelosi only has leverage in the eyes of clueless liberals and the usual lying media.

oh then i guess there's nothing for you to worry about.

[Bodakane]

Never said history books weren't real, I meant that your version of what they'll look like in the future is hypothetical. Try reading more carefully.

You said they were hypothetical. I read just fine. You didn't allude to what they'll look like in the future. I also see not reason to give you the benefit of the doubt as you clearly believe out there stuff.

[Fahrenheit]

Now he has things in common with his good “friend”...

Looks like he's about to give Slick Willy a tug n' rub. Befitting...

[starlord]

Oh, does it? The Constitution doesn't say anywhere that the Senate has to wait on the House to send over anything for them to vote on it. What a delicious irony that you ask me for evidence but directly lie about what the Constitution does or doesn't say. May I refer you back to what one of your fellow posters posted only a few pages back about how good the Republicans are at taking advantage of the vagueness of the Constitution?

All of the "rules" that are cited constantly about impeachment and confused with what the Constitution actually says is astounding. Keep claiming to defend and uphold something you haven't read.

- - - Updated - - -



Agreed. I'm not worried about it, but I'm also not going to let lies be spread that Pelosi finally has the Republicans right where she wants them, as has been suggested in one way or another by several of you.

i guess your wording is kind of confusing, can you show us how this works? it seems you are implying that the senate can circumvent the house regarding impeachment and vote on articles that have not been officially presented to them or something?

[Zan15]

I wish their tracker put far less weight on Rasmussen. Rasmussen single handedly is distorting his approval/disapproval by about 4% because they put out such a high volume of polls, and all of them are such massive deviations from other polls. 538 explains their presence with the fact that they were right about 2016 - at the same time, they explain Rasmussen has been very wrong about every other election.

Whenever Trump quotes a favorable poll, it's pretty much always Rasmussen. I'm pretty sure it's just propaganda that we have to pretend is real because no one can prove it.

They were not even right. Rasmussen predicted EC win for Hillary on their final call

Then they deleted it but Internet archive has it still

[cubby]

Oh, does it? The Constitution doesn't say anywhere that the Senate has to wait on the House to send over anything for them to vote on it. What a delicious irony that you ask me for evidence but directly lie about what the Constitution does or doesn't say. May I refer you back to what one of your fellow posters posted only a few pages back about how good the Republicans are at taking advantage of the vagueness of the Constitution?

All of the "rules" that are cited constantly about impeachment and confused with what the Constitution actually says is astounding. Keep claiming to defend and uphold something you haven't read.

Again, show us the evidence of your claims. Right now, I'm citing the U.S. House of Representatives Speaker as evidence.

[zEmini]

So now we go to the senate? What is the hold up?

I expect EVERYONE to testify including Rudy Giuliani (and all of trumps buddies) and the whistle blower.

[Endus]

Yes, there's no requirement that the articles need to be walked over on a silver platter for them to be voted on. The process for that is a House of Representatives rule. McConnell could convene the trial and hold a vote any time he wants simply by virtue of the text of the articles being public and the vote having been recorded in the House. Most news outlets are so busy kissing Nancy's ass for her "big play" that they haven't even bothered to realize this yet or refuse to admit it.

And yet, he's not doing that.

So what's the point of you hammering at this distraction? Even if he could, he isn't, so it's pointless to bring up.

[Endus]

Pointing out what is or isn't in the Constitution doesn't require me to cite an article. I'm your primary source.

That's not what "primary source" even means. In this, the Constitution is the primary source document in question.

Learn what words mean.

[cubby]

Yes, there's no requirement that the articles need to be walked over on a silver platter for them to be voted on. The process for that is a House of Representatives rule. McConnell could convene the trial and hold a vote any time he wants simply by virtue of the text of the articles being public and the vote having been recorded in the House. Most news outlets are so busy kissing Nancy's ass for her "big play" that they haven't even bothered to realize this yet or refuse to admit it.

I honestly think it's just a temporary play to get a bump in the polling prior to the recess. There was no intention of sending the articles to the Senate because they would have taken precedence over the vote that needs to happen before tomorrow to keep the government from shutting down. Nancy is just taking advantage of that coincidence and coordinating with the usual complicit media to give the appearance that she's playing hardball and working the Republicans for concessions in the Senate when that is not actually happening.

No evidence for your unfounded opinion yet? Is anyone saying this at all? Can you even link something from McConnell? Or is this just more of your usual lies?

We're happy to admit when we're wrong, or even if there is uncertainty, but all we have from you is an unfounded opinion on a subject you are notoriously biased upon, while we have the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the other side.

[Edge-]

I expect EVERYONE to testify including Rudy Giuliani (and all of trumps buddies) and the whistle blower.

That's up to McConnell and Republicans. And it doesn't sound like they're interested in speaking with anyone out of concern that they may reveal more damaging information. He wants to rush this through and move on, not treat it seriously.

[Endus]

It's not pointless, what's pointless is acting like Pelosi has leverage, when what I said demonstrates how she doesn't have any at all.

The only "leverage" Pelosi has is "maybe we'll take this up in the new year, rather than mucking up the holidays with this".

That's not exactly a huge impact that you can brag that she doesn't technically have the capacity to prevent. Plus, it's more than a little ridiculous to say that the Senate isn't technically legally bound to precedent and process in this impeachment proceeding, when Republicans have been bleating about precedent and process the whole time.

[cubby]

Pointing out what is or isn't in the Constitution doesn't require me to cite an article. I'm your primary source.

Wow - that is signature worthy. Facts and logic and evidence don't matter to Sulla. If he doesn't bother to look for the answer, then his opinion is THE LAW!

Meanwhile, in the world where cites matter, Pelosi the Statesman is rocking the politics by forcing Moscow Mitch into a fair trial.

[cubby]

It's not a lie to point out things you can read for yourself.

I can't wait to read the links you provide to back up your opinion. Until then, it's false - which is what we called a lie in the real world.

This Impeachment, and let's take a moment to remember that an Impeached President never gets undone - Trump is further tarnished forever by his own actions. Pelosi is playing 3D chess against a "man" who lost his gold plated checkers in a three card monte game he was running.

[starlord]

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.

why don't you just cite the relevant portions of the constitution? for what its worth i have seen what you're saying, but i'm not going to do your homework for you.

[Xeones]

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.

You can't have any reading of the constitution regarding impeachment and support Trump the way you do.

The constitution demands he be impeached.

[Zaktar]

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.

Here are the Senate's impeachment rules: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...hmentRules.pdf

I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, aggreeably to such notice...

I don't want to continue writing that out, but it's effectively saying that their process begins when the House appoints prosecutors. If Pelosi doesn't appoint them, the process doesn't start. McConnell has already indicated he's in no rush so it seems unlikely he will rush to overturn formal rules.

[starlord]

LOL, I'm not sure what homework you think I have. I know there are plenty of people here that are fully aware that what I'm saying is true. It's up to the others to remain ignorant. The Constitution of the United States of America isn't exactly hard to track down.

I'm not going to spend 5 minutes or so of cutting and pasting excerpts just to show someone what ISN'T in it.

well you wanted to fight on the hill of a tiny technicality so you had best be prepared to back it up. shouldn't be that difficult.

in any case it would make sense to someone like you for the repubs to brute force a vote in this way (because the future doesnt matter) so i see why you have chosen it.