Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

But I though refusing to reveal information is proof of guilt  <_<

 

 

Again, if that they thought that circular logic was persuasive they could have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas like every other lawyer.  Instead the Ds on CSPAN are most absurd legal theory I've heard in a real trial.  They're trying to say that the mere assertion of a privilege not the Executive's legal right but somehow a high crime.   

 

Let's try this logic on the other hand.  Adam Schiff must testify concerning all of his dealings with the so called whistleblower in sworn and public testimony.  Said man cannot hide behind the Whistleblower statute if it would conceal evidence of wrongdoing.  And we know he did wrong because he is trying to say anonymous.

 

See if the Rs thought this was a compelling argument they could subpoena Schiff and co. tomorrow and got to Court when he doesn't comply. 

 

32E867F7-50EF-4AB6-86EF-39BC4FA4388A.jpeg

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

Quote

 

There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. 2/15 

 

There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a “mountain of overwhelming evidence.” 3/15 

 

There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers. 4/15 

 

It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. 5/15 

 

When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. 6/15 

 

But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate. 7/15 

 

The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. 8/15 

 

I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. 9/15 

 

The Senate has spent nine long days considering this “mountain” of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. 10/15 

 

Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” standard for an impeachable offense. 11/15 

 

The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. 12/15 

 

If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. 13/15 

 

It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party. 14/15 

 

Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with “the consent of the governed,” not at the pleasure of the United States Congress.
Let the people decide. 15/15 

 

 

This will be Senator Alexander's legacy. And it is hilariously sad to read.

 

TL;DR: "He did it; but we don't care, because we need to rig elections to win." Republicans/enablers. 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

Carl Bernstein got it right - This will be a very shameful episode in our history.   My fear is how this will embolden  trump to do even more unconstitutional acts.  And God help us all if the guy gets reelected.  Take a lesson from history, many tyrants were at their weakest just before they gained their power - they had opposition but not enough 'good men' stepped forward to topple them before they consolidated their power.

 

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/a-shameful-episode-in-our-history-carl-bernstein-scorches-senate-for-cover-up-after-alexanders-likely-trial-ending-no-vote/

Link to comment

9 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

Again, if that they thought that circular logic was persuasive they could have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas like every other lawyer.  Instead the Ds on CSPAN are most absurd legal theory I've heard in a real trial.  They're trying to say that the mere assertion of a privilege not the Executive's legal right but somehow a high crime

Going to court likely would have taken months to resolve and they simply didn’t have that kind of time.  You know this to be true. To address your other point. Executive privilege was NEVER exerted.  So that deflates your argument about that. 

Look, if you are ok with a government where the president is not held accountable for not in any way complying with legitimate congressional requests without having to go to court , then that’s your deal.  If you’re also ok with the president leveraging a foreign entity to help him politically, again that’s on you.  
 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

But I though refusing to reveal information is proof of guilt  <_<

 

 

Again, if that they thought that circular logic was persuasive they could have gone to court to enforce their subpoenas like every other lawyer.  Instead the Ds on CSPAN are most absurd legal theory I've heard in a real trial.  They're trying to say that the mere assertion of a privilege not the Executive's legal right but somehow a high crime.   

 

Let's try this logic on the other hand.  Adam Schiff must testify concerning all of his dealings with the so called whistleblower in sworn and public testimony.  Said man cannot hide behind the Whistleblower statute if it would conceal evidence of wrongdoing.  And we know he did wrong because he is trying to say anonymous.

 

See if the Rs thought this was a compelling argument they could subpoena Schiff and co. tomorrow and got to Court when he doesn't comply. 

 

"You have to go to court to enforce your subpoenas."

 

"You can't go to court to enforce your subpoenas."

 

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

57 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

Can you imagine what will happen the next 9+ months now that Trump & Bill Barr know knew what they can get away with even if they get caught red-handed again!?! 

 

39 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Uncle Blazer says to keep your head up

 

 

 

 

 

Both Q and Blazer have right.

 

Republicans going full-blown

 

jpeg

 

... and deciding they don't need any more information to trash the constitution and lay down at the feet of their corrupt leader does NOT mean that info doesn't exist. And it's going to continue to dribble out. Which puts them in a very awkward spot. They're going to have to either continue to ignore it (like they already do w/ most stuff that is terrible about Trump) or  try to explain away how it isn't that important or wouldn't have changed their plans.

 

With this decision, the GOP have become fully subservient full-time enablers.

 

Many say they want to leave this decision to voters in an election year, as if justice doesn't matter every 2 years.

 

We're going to have to do their jobs for them. Kick their a$$ at the ballot box, save the democracy from this corrupt buffoon trying to destroy it and take their seats away. Send the GOP into the wilderness until they decide they're going to try to be better than this.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, QMany said:

There is no need to debate their bad-faith factual or legal defenses anymore; Trump's counsel and Republican Senators admit he did it but argue its not impeachable. 

 

This has been the pattern of every wrongdoing Trump has been accused of. Trump is accused. Trump Denies. Evidence comes out proving he did, Trump Denies. Overwhelming evidence comes out, Trump says I did it, but it wasn't illegal. Trump starts new controversy to distract from the old, Trump is off the hook. 

 

EVERY TIME!!! 

  • Plus1 6
Link to comment

If you look at the reaction of serious, non-partisan people, this is a very dangerous box the GOP just opened with their pathetic fealty to their king.

 

For instance, if we're going to have to retake our democracy the old-fashioned way by voting, it just became a lot harder, because the GOP just signed off on the president and his team doing whatever they need to to win. This is the thrust of a colossally ignorant and short-sighted advanced by Dersh recently: Nothing the president does, including cheating to win elections, is impeachable, if they believe their re-election is in the country's best interest.

 

I mean Jesus, imagine arguing that with a serious face. That's an argument that's going to bite the  GOP and the entire country someday.

 

You know Trump, Barr and the rest of Corrupt Scumbag Inc. is going to be cheating like gangbusters to get every advantage possible.

 

Some reax below:

 

 

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...