cduggles
Bluelight Crew
So certain people wouldn’t claim they were dragging out the impeachment and wasting the taxpayers’ money?
US Politics The trump impeachment thread
- Thread starter GENGAR
- Start date
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
You may have missed the bit about separation of powers, specifically the bit regarding executive privilege (which Trump is hardly the first to use). I've stated before, I don't believe Trump made the 'dont cooperate' command out of an effort to protect the office of the President, and I will acknowledge there is a chance of him doing so trying to protect himself from something being uncovered, but for the most part I think he's doing it to be a prick.
But the separation of powers is a real thing. Regular citizens subpoenaed don't have that, but Presidents do. The check-and-balance thing allows presidents to do things normal people can't, to prevent an over-reach by congress just as congress has a means to prevent an over-reach by presidents. In either situation, it goes to the judicial branch to determine what should be done. A president should be able to conduct national business with other world leaders - it's been going on since we had our first president. With that duty, there is lattitude given to the office in doing negotiations, and there are boundaries on those negotiations as overseen by congress. I can get into it further if you wish, but I'm trying not to set off a TLB;DR. Bottom line, all presidents have had the 'separation' from the legislative and judicial branches. IF the courts say the president's men have to appear despite executive direction, it will weaken the office for all future presidents (something the Dems don't seem to notice or care about).
My point, regardless of Trumps motivation (be a prick, hide something, etc), there is a real concern about giving too much power to any single branch. Historically, presidents have had this power, and it is up to the judicial, not legislative, to determine if this situation is different.
Right, because Trump colluded with Russia...oh, wait, he didn't. We have Mueller's report saying so. Because Trump quid-pro-quo'd...er, bribed....er, what is now? Fuck, can't even make up charge that can stick because there isn't something he did wrong...we'll just keep looking for something to impeach him with - let's dig into his previous taxes, maybe that'll turn something up. Investigating his staff was able to get some 'lying to congress', yeah, that was pretty dirty of Trump when he didn't have anything to do with it.
You say it has been Trump's actions. I look back and see a long list of Trump actions the Dems have pursued in an effort to impeach him. Even now, they are voting on something that is so unclear-cut there is great division amongst the people on if it was something wrong and if it is serious enough. I see 3y+ of Dems looking for something and failing repeatedly. If it were Trump's actions, he'd have been hung on something substantial long ago.
There are some who are blind, and they stick absolutely to their beliefs even in the face of inarguable evidence. I'd say that applies to both sides, and across a spectrum of how hard those beliefs are held. I think most of us in here are still listening to the other side, hoping to hear something that will change their mind, but with each growing day they find themselves without something strong enough to change their mind they become deeper entrenched with what they originally thought. Again, I say that of both sides, and even all of us in the middle
Still, we tune in, each express our differing views on the same 'facts', hoping to learn something.
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
This is a hypocrisy on the right I'm struggling with. First, there is the cries of how long Mueller will investigate as it drags on for years and costs millions. The fact that it turned up nothing can be both a cry over wasted money but also a place to point and say 'time and money well spent to prove nothing was there.'
When it comes to the impeachment, I've heard from the right (and likely stated myself) why is it taking them so damn long to get to the point of grounds for impeachment? It was taking what felt like a long time, and during that time we've seen the grounds get changed repeatedly (bribery, per marketing research, lol). Slow, without focus or clarity, it begged for mockery. Now, the house churns it quick to drive to a vote on two points for impeachment, and suddenly it is moving too fast? I really don't get this argument from the right - there is no 'just right' for goldilocks, just too fast and too slow. Can they say 'too fast' with a straight face when their president is holding out for judicial review over subpeonas which will take over a year to adjudicate? I am curious, other than the witnesses called with the president exercised his given authority to say 'no', is there really anything else the Reps would have seen if given more time? I don't say that from 'dems twisting all the rules and what is talked about and what isnt' and more from a perspective of 'what the hell else was there they thought should be included?'
I do, however, have serious concerns over a lack of fairness in how the House conducted it's investigation (restriction of witnesses and Republican opportunity to engage), and am fearing the Senate will perform a similarly lopsided operation in any sort of trial (should they hold one). Doing so won't help anyone, anywhere.
tathra
bluelighter
trump has been impeached for abuse of power
impeachment for obstruction of Congress will be voted on next
www.nytimes.com
impeachment for obstruction of Congress will be voted on next
Trump Impeachment Vote Live Updates: House Votes to Impeach Trump for Abuse of Power
The historic vote charges the president with “high crimes and misdemeanors” in connection with a Ukraine pressure campaign. Mr. Trump becomes the third sitting president in history to be impeached.
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
And so it begins... or continues... (less dramatic 
)
)
mal3volent
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 40,089
Looks like the yays have it
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
Just to make it CEP&S official:
www.nbcnews.com
Trump impeached by the House for abuse of power, obstruction of Congress
The votes set the stage for a trial of the president in the Senate, due to begin in early January.
www.nbcnews.com
Hal_1ncandenza
Bluelighter
I don't think the conviction will succeed.
Will be interesting to see what shenanigans Trump et al get up to during the trial though. I'm making popcorn.
Will be interesting to see what shenanigans Trump et al get up to during the trial though. I'm making popcorn.
tathra
bluelighter
ofc it won't, several senators have openly declared they don't give a fuck what evidence is presented, they'll never vote against trump
and for that they should be removed from the conviction proceedings since they're compromised
and for that they should be removed from the conviction proceedings since they're compromised
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Unfortunately I don't think it will succeed either. In fact, if I had to place a bet, I kinda suspect that history will reflect on trump as 4 years of democrats trying to get rid of him, only for him to get voted out after 1 term anyway.
In some ways I almost hope that doesn't happen. I feel like trump needs to crash and burn a lot harder than this for the country to come out stronger in the long run.
I do feel what he did (encouraging a foreign leader to investigate a domestic political enemy) warrants being thrown out of office. But I'm concerned that a better tactic might have been to wait for something more substantial to get him on.
atara
Bluelighter
Unironically I don't see why the House needs to hold a thorough hearing. The Senate is charged with trying the President. "Impeach" means "to levy charges against a public official":
en.wikipedia.org
"Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official.
You don't need proof to bring charges. If you did, what would be the point of a trial? You do need some kind of reasonable suspicion, a bar that Sondland, Hill and Yovanovich's testimony flies over quite comfortably.
If the Senate doesn't want to hold a real trial, that's another problem.
Impeachment - Wikipedia
"Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official.
You don't need proof to bring charges. If you did, what would be the point of a trial? You do need some kind of reasonable suspicion, a bar that Sondland, Hill and Yovanovich's testimony flies over quite comfortably.
If the Senate doesn't want to hold a real trial, that's another problem.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Unironically I don't see why the House needs to hold a thorough hearing. The Senate is charged with trying the President. "Impeach" means "to levy charges against a public official":
Impeachment - Wikipedia
"Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official.
You don't need proof to bring charges. If you did, what would be the point of a trial? You do need some kind of reasonable suspicion, a bar that Sondland, Hill and Yovanovich's testimony flies over quite comfortably.
If the Senate doesn't want to hold a real trial, that's another problem.
Republicans and conservatives have long been advocating a catch 22 where we can't investigate trump because there's no strong evidence of wrong doing. But we can't get strong evidence of wrong doing without investigating...
It's like on bad legal dramas where the defense asks the judge to throw out a case for lack of evidence, at the very start of the trial before there's been time to collect or present any evidence to begin with.
You don't need much evidence to start investigating, or you'd never investigate anything.
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
But then we have to investigate the investigators! 8(
edit: there’s nothing wrong with investigating the investigators, but not simply to undermine legitimate claims and concerns.
edit: there’s nothing wrong with investigating the investigators, but not simply to undermine legitimate claims and concerns.
Last edited:
CoastTwoCoast
Bluelighter
I'm glad the impeachment is happening if he actually gets put out on his ass like he deserves.
I'm sure the ones pulling the strings love Trump as President. He is a major distraction so people aren't paying attention to what they are really up to. They want people to keep their eyes on the circus clown constantly causing trouble. He divides the country and stirs up more race wars/violence than anyone I've seen. He's the perfect puppet. They love when people are fighting. It helps them succeed.
Whatever happens, I'll accept it because it was meant to be. I'm not worried about it. People like Trump and the ones behind the scenes do not have the victory in the end.
I'm sure the ones pulling the strings love Trump as President. He is a major distraction so people aren't paying attention to what they are really up to. They want people to keep their eyes on the circus clown constantly causing trouble. He divides the country and stirs up more race wars/violence than anyone I've seen. He's the perfect puppet. They love when people are fighting. It helps them succeed.
Whatever happens, I'll accept it because it was meant to be. I'm not worried about it. People like Trump and the ones behind the scenes do not have the victory in the end.
Last edited:
tathra
bluelighter
that's called "acting in bad faith". they know he's guilty of a whole host of crimes so they'll use any excuse they can to prevent him from being tried
and yeah, impeachment is basically just an indictment, but you do need evidence to get an indictment as a ward against abuse of power. in trump's case, the evidence is ubiquitous and in everyone's face
somnilicious
Bluelighter
Yeah..... kudos to Trump and the Republicans for playing the game well but to claim Trump is acting as a protector of the Constitutional separation of the 3 branches of Government is a farce, though technically the DOJ is a part of the executive branch, his precedent setting meddling with the DOJ investigation into himself is a direct threat to the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers. If successful the scale will forever tip in the direction of the executive and I find it quite ironic that the party calling itself the Republican party is perhaps driving the death nail into the American Republic but this is as inevitable as the fall of the Roman republic and is a sign of the times. He is actually the first to do this as neither Nixon nor Clinton enacted their executive power to Replace Attorney general to interfere with investigations. Trump did this not once but twice and it is because of Barr that the Mueller hearing was so watered down. Why does the President have the power to appoint the director of the department that is charged with investigating him??
The Mueller investigation actually never absolved Trump of Russian collusion as Mueller himself has said and there is very concerning evidence that Trump probably did just that within the actual written report and in fact he is actually on tape in front of his supporters very much colluding by calling for Russia to hack and release Clinton emails, for which they promptly complied but he was joking... Right??? Blah, blah, blah. I find it quite interesting that an individual asking another individual over the internet to commit murder is sufficient evidence of committing that crime but a presidential candidate directly calling for a country to interfere in our elections on tape can be plausibly denied away by such large percentages of the American people as not being enough proof of collusion.
As for actual crimes, the list of instances of obstruction of Justice date all the way back to the Stormy Daniels affair, The Mueller report and the current impeachment hearings. The instances of obstruction are so numerous and convoluted that it is difficult to even keep up with them. The actual abuse of power is evident to everyone but Republicans, who again continue to plausibly deny, what a majority of the American people know by claiming he was simply trying to route out corruption in the Ukraine by withholding aid in return for investigation into corruption but not just specifically corruption but the son of his political rival but Trump has mastered the art of double talk as he is quite adept at the art of deception. Anyone, who has watched Trump for long enough can be assured of his intentions, which isn't routing out corruption in the Ukraine but again plausible deniability.
If I was Pelosi and the Democrats I would hold the articles of impeachment until after the elections. Why pass them on when the outcome is a forgone conclusion, especially when Mcconnell and the Republican's have already stated as such, after all if games are to be played, play to win at all cost, just as Trump as shown he is willing to do time and time again. I am quite sure the Republicans will simply use the trial as a platform to advance their quack theories about Ukraine interfering in Us elections and as an opportunity to further muddy the election credibility of Biden by off handedly putting Trevor Biden on trial anyways. Why give them the opportunity?
I love this clip and quotes from Mcconnell. What a hypocrite.
thatwasthenthisisnow.org
Check out this article...
thehill.com
The Mueller investigation actually never absolved Trump of Russian collusion as Mueller himself has said and there is very concerning evidence that Trump probably did just that within the actual written report and in fact he is actually on tape in front of his supporters very much colluding by calling for Russia to hack and release Clinton emails, for which they promptly complied but he was joking... Right??? Blah, blah, blah. I find it quite interesting that an individual asking another individual over the internet to commit murder is sufficient evidence of committing that crime but a presidential candidate directly calling for a country to interfere in our elections on tape can be plausibly denied away by such large percentages of the American people as not being enough proof of collusion.
As for actual crimes, the list of instances of obstruction of Justice date all the way back to the Stormy Daniels affair, The Mueller report and the current impeachment hearings. The instances of obstruction are so numerous and convoluted that it is difficult to even keep up with them. The actual abuse of power is evident to everyone but Republicans, who again continue to plausibly deny, what a majority of the American people know by claiming he was simply trying to route out corruption in the Ukraine by withholding aid in return for investigation into corruption but not just specifically corruption but the son of his political rival but Trump has mastered the art of double talk as he is quite adept at the art of deception. Anyone, who has watched Trump for long enough can be assured of his intentions, which isn't routing out corruption in the Ukraine but again plausible deniability.
If I was Pelosi and the Democrats I would hold the articles of impeachment until after the elections. Why pass them on when the outcome is a forgone conclusion, especially when Mcconnell and the Republican's have already stated as such, after all if games are to be played, play to win at all cost, just as Trump as shown he is willing to do time and time again. I am quite sure the Republicans will simply use the trial as a platform to advance their quack theories about Ukraine interfering in Us elections and as an opportunity to further muddy the election credibility of Biden by off handedly putting Trevor Biden on trial anyways. Why give them the opportunity?
I love this clip and quotes from Mcconnell. What a hypocrite.
Mitch McConnell on Impeachment: Then and Now
2/12/99: Do we want to retain our honor?” 9/25/19: [It is] laughable to think this is…an impeachable offense.” Click for more quotes.
thatwasthenthisisnow.org
Check out this article...
McConnell has complicated history on impeachment
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) opposed a motion to dismiss articles of impeachment in 1999, calling a Democratic proposal to quickly dismiss the trial of then-President Clinton “a t…
thehill.com
Last edited:
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
No matter anything else... I can't read the transcript and interpret it any other way than that he was soliciting a foreign country to attack a domestic political enemy.
No matter anything else he's ever done, that is NOT acceptable. It is corrupt.
And for fucks sake... This is the President of the United States of America. The office should be held to a higher standard than "oh it's only a minor act of corruption".
There are no minor acts of corruption when you're the fucking president.
No matter anything else he's ever done, that is NOT acceptable. It is corrupt.
And for fucks sake... This is the President of the United States of America. The office should be held to a higher standard than "oh it's only a minor act of corruption".
There are no minor acts of corruption when you're the fucking president.
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
Is it bad faith to speak of impeachment long before any reason is found? And then to carry it forth when the 'proof' is subjective?
'Ubiquitous'. And yet, half the country doesn't see it that way.
= = = = =
Something I ponder is if he is impeached (I suppose I should write that past tense now, correct?) but not removed, he is allowed to run for a second term. What if he wins?
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
Yeah he's allowed to re-run if he isn't removed.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I don't think it's bad faith so long as the ultimate cause for impeachment is valid in the end.
For instance, I will say, with no reservations at all, that I've wanted trump out of office since the moment he took office, before he'd done anything. And I see nothing wrong with that. I'm allowed to not like him, I'm allowed to believe he's bad for the country.
I don't want congress to just make up evidence, although strictly speaking impeachment is a political process not a legal one. But I see nothing wrong with believing the guy is bad for the country, and keeping a very close eye on him for wrong doing.
All that matters is, did he do something wrong. If he did, having wanted to see him removed before that doesn't make what he did OK.
As for running for president in future. That will be up to the senate. The Senate has three options here under the constitution. They can either keep him in office, remove him from office, or disqualify him from holding office entirely.
The absolute highest possible sanction they could provide is to disqualify him from holding any office of federal government again. They can do as much as that, as little as nothing. Or something in between, like just removing him from office but not disqualifying him.