The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said:

In the context of the argument being had this doesn't make that much sense. If Trump wants to make the argument that its ok if Russia influences the election in his favor because we influence other elections that is simply ludicris. One may be morally wrong(us doing it to others) but the other is against the law in the US.

 

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

The history and context of our meddling does not matter when it comes to how we deal with meddling in our own country. We should know going into meddling with others that they might do it to us, but when they do it, how we react to it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether we’ve done it to others or not. We should put a stop to it and defend ourselves regardless.

 

This isn’t a discussion of the right and wrong of the thing. It’s a discussion of how we defend ourselves against other countries meddling. The argument that we should be less upset about it happening to us or less vigilant in stopping it based on whether we’ve done it before is asinine. We protect our country’s current self interests regardless of what crimes or immoral things we’ve done in the past. 

 

Our meddling in the past matters when it comes to choosing whether to meddle in the future. We should make these decisions based on whether it helped us in the past or whether we now think it’s immoral behavior. That’s where the past is relevant. Not in how we deal with other countries doing it to us.

 

 

It does hold weight, but I said a lot of the time. I also said it has had bad results.

I think you are both missing my point, and we're talking passed each other. Let me clarify my stance. I already said we have every right to defend ourselves against foreign meddling in our elections. I did not say Trump was correct or agree with him in any way. I also did not say that because we've done it that we should be less upset or less vigilant. What I am saying is that we shouldn't turn a blind eye to our own actions and history, and how we choose to respond or solve these issues should take into account the context of history.

[Moiraine]

45 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

I think you are both missing my point, and we're talking passed each other. Let me clarify my stance. I already said we have every right to defend ourselves against foreign meddling in our elections. I did not say Trump was correct or agree with him in any way. I also did not say that because we've done it that we should be less upset or less vigilant. What I am saying is that we shouldn't turn a blind eye to our own actions and history, and how we choose to respond or solve these issues should take into account the context of history.

 

 

 

Then why did you say “This makes no sense.” ? What you’re saying above is essentially what I was saying in the post you responded to that way. 

 

I wasn’t saying we should turn a blind eye to our past actions.

[QMany]

 

[ZRod]

You guys and gals aren't going to believe this, but apparently Trump (and Hope Hicks) were very much involved in the hush withoney payments with Michael Cohen.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/18/trump-hope-hicks-stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-fbi?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_reddit_is_fun

Quote

They said Trump and Hicks had a four-minute call with Cohen on the evening of 8 October 2016, a day after the leak of an NBC recording of Trump boasting that he grabbed women by their genitals, as an effort to silence Daniels apparently began.

 

Cohen had not spoken with Hicks for weeks beforehand and typically only had a call with Trump about once a month, according to the agent, who said Cohen and Hicks “spoke again for about two minutes” soon after the call with Trump.

Following the calls with Trump and Hicks, Cohen embarked on a flurry of calls and texts with executives at American Media, the publisher of the National Enquirer, which later admitted helping Trump cover up hush-money payments.

 

Numerous additional text messages, calls and frantic discussions between Cohen and others about the payoff to Daniels were detailed in the filings. Cohen “spoke to Trump for approximately five minutes” on 28 October, the day the payment was finalised, according to the FBI.

The filings were unsealed after Judge William Pauley disclosed on Wednesday that federal investigators had ended their inquiry into Trump’s hush-money payments to two women who alleged they had extramarital affairs with him.

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[TGHusker]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

And it is Fox News.  I wonder what the make up of the poll was.  

[BigRedBuster]

 

[ZRod]

24 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Let's start this thing. Get everyone in court and either show how corrupt everything is, or ok them to testify. It's put up or shut up time.

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Let's start this thing. Get everyone in court and either show how corrupt everything is, or ok them to testify. It's put up or shut up time.

 

That's all fine and dandy.  I would support that.

However, as impressive as 110 members supporting it is, there are 435 members of the house.  So, we would need 218 to support it.  We aren't there yet......but it's growing.

[ZRod]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

That's all fine and dandy.  I would support that.

However, as impressive as 110 members supporting it is, there are 435 members of the house.  So, we would need 218 to support it.  We aren't there yet......but it's growing.

I'm saying start the investigation into impeachment. By the time it finishes I'll bet you ha e a lot more people in favor of it.

[Danny Bateman]

45 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I'm saying start the investigation into impeachment. By the time it finishes I'll bet you ha e a lot more people in favor of it. 

 

I used to be team "I don't care about impeachment because the Senate will acquit anyway." Polling still indicates about twice as many voters oppose it as favor it.

 

But I feel like those numbers could shift very quickly once it was actually triggered. I'm beginning to think Dems are waiting to pull the trigger on it until closer to the election.

 

One could not draw up a better weapon to use against Trump than a long, in-depth hearing exposing all of his misconduct and corruption.

 

I'm on that team now. Cut the man down at the knees at the worst possible time.

[TheSker]

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

I used to be team "I don't care about impeachment because the Senate will acquit anyway." Polling still indicates about twice as many voters oppose it as favor it.

 

But I feel like those numbers could shift very quickly once it was actually triggered. I'm beginning to think Dems are waiting to pull the trigger on it until closer to the election.

 

One could not draw up a better weapon to use against Trump than a long, in-depth hearing exposing all of his misconduct and corruption.

 

I'm on that team now. Cut the man down at the knees at the worst possible time.

I think that would be a good plan.

[Scarlet Overkill]

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

That's all fine and dandy.  I would support that.

However, as impressive as 110 members supporting it is, there are 435 members of the house.  So, we would need 218 to support it.  We aren't there yet......but it's growing.

 

If ever there was a time for a #MeToo movement, now would be a good time

[Nebfanatic]

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-racism-impeachable-offense-precedent-andrew-johnson-proves-it-ncna1035951

 

Very interesting piece on Andrew Johnsons impeachment and how it applies directly to Trump

[TGHusker]

6 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-racism-impeachable-offense-precedent-andrew-johnson-proves-it-ncna1035951

 

Very interesting piece on Andrew Johnsons impeachment and how it applies directly to Trump

good article. Proof of Trump's racists words are public record in his tweets, speeches and comments.  He can't blame someone else for what he has said.