Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[BlueK]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...149157888?s=19

Turns out the answer is yes.

so he admits he's incompetent

[Jeff Lebowski]

Uncle Ted, you missed one. In 2008, your boy Trump lamented that Pelosi didn't impeach Bush.

Embedded Tweet

[falafel]

“Fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser... You dummies.

Well, rules of venue, etc. Prosecutors are often worried about whether a jury or a particular judge can be fair and impartial.

Of course, we are talking about the Senate here. Can't move the trial to the other Senate.

[falafel]

These Pelosi quotes should make for some good political ads for Drumpf...

[ATTACH]9884[/ATTACH]

Wait, there was bipartisan support... to not to impeach.

When did Democrats change their name to the "Radical Democrats"? Seems like that wouldn't go over well, except for maybe in California.

[Uncle Ted]

Uncle Ted, you missed one. In 2008, your boy Trump lamented that Pelosi didn't impeach Bush.

Embedded Tweet

Bush did lie and should have been impeached! Ask Walter.

[creekster]

Trying? Really? There's a court hearing set for January 3 to evaluate Don McGahn's subpoena:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-court-hearing

Why couldn't they have waited for that? Oh yeah ... the election (like I said).

They've readily admitted that they didn't subpoena John Bolton, despite him asking them to, because they knew they'd have to go to court to enforce it.

There's at least one other subpoena case that they decided to give up on rather than go through the normal appeal process that happens in every single case. Enforcement of that subpoena was stayed by the Supreme Court until the appeal could be resolved. And given that you will of course argue that the Supreme Court is just protecting Trump, I will note that there wasn't a single dissenting opinion issued with the stay order.

This isn't trying. It's deciding that it is more important to "get impeachment done" so Trump will be tainted going into the election, without disrupting the Democratic primary. Everyone acknowledges this is what they are doing. How is that any less insidious than having a foreign country that a majority of Americans known nothing about announce a bogus investigation that everyone will forget about in 24 hours? Is this really what impeachment was intended for?

Moreover the democrats claim they could not wait to push impeachment forward due to the risk to future elections and to national security itself. But now having passed the articles of impeachment Pelosi says they might be willing to wait until McConnell and the senate agrees to procedures for the trial that the democrats like. Can't wait for a court to assess the subpoena claims; can wait for political expediency.

What a bunch of oafs. If Trump wins again it will be due as much to the democrats as to anything Trump or his supporters have done.

[SoCalCoug]

Mueller found there was no collusion with Russia.

Let's start here. This is a false statement. He expressly made no conclusions regarding collusion with Russia, based on his boss's interpretation of his authority. His report contains plenty of evidence of such.

[smokymountainrain]

Moreover the democrats claim they could not wait to push impeachment forward due to the risk to future elections and to national security itself. But now having passed the articles of impeachment Pelosi says they might be willing to wait until McConnell and the senate agrees to procedures for the trial that the democrats like. Can't wait for a court to assess the subpoena claims; can wait for political expediency.

What a bunch of oafs. If Trump wins again it will be due as much to the democrats as to anything Trump or his supporters have done.

eh, very stupid people still have to vote for him. they will always be most at fault.

[SeattleUte]

Let's start here. This is a false statement. He expressly made no conclusions regarding collusion with Russia, based on his boss's interpretation of his authority. His report contains plenty of evidence of such.

I have no idea what you're talking about. According to this AP fact check:

"The Mueller report said the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not collected sufficient evidence 'to establish' or sustain criminal charges." That's the legal equivalent of there was no conspiracy.

https://apnews.com/f9c0ab20229140f18ea34e1f15a9f597

As for collusion, "The report also makes clear the investigation did not assess whether 'collusion' occurred because it is not a legal term." This has nothing to do with authority. Collusion is not a legally recognizable offense. But clearly Mueller concluded there was no conspiracy. In common English, however, collusion means a secret conspiracy. They are synonyms, except for collusion adds the secret element.

https://www.google.com/search?q=coll...=1576785225929

I'd love to see Trump removed from office for a lot of reasons. But probably the worst thing the democrats have going for them politically in the current effort is their credibility. They've ruined their credibility politically because of their chicken little cries, their overstatements, and their woke BS. (A majority of independents oppose impeachment, and what nonpartisan voters think is really what matters here.)

All that matters here is the political effect. Whether Trump wins or loses, it will be blamed on this impeachment.

[creekster]

eh, very stupid people still have to vote for him. they will always be most at fault.

One of the roots of the division in this country over Trump is the belief by people that voted for Clinton that only stupid people voted for Trump. This is simply not true. While many dumb people voted for Trump, many other equally dumb people voted for Clinton. The day in 2020 will be carried, just like it was in 2016, not by the dumb people but by those who make considered votes and who fall on the middle part of the spectrum. The polls I have seen suggest a lot of these people very much dislike the impeachment process and yesterday's vote. Believing that only dumb people will vote for Trump ignores the very real problems presented by most of the democratic candidates and the disingenuous conduct of the democratic majority in the House.

[frank ryan]

eh, very stupid people still have to vote for him. they will always be most at fault.

There is this weird anti-conservative philosophy stuff that pops up in these threads: Democrats got Trump elected. They went with Hillary, it’s their fault the GOP selected an immoral, unstable and embarrassing guy.

For all the talk of being responsible for one’s actions, the logic that democrats are to blame for Trump being elected, let alone mostly to blame as creek would assert, is really incongruent and ultimately lazy and flawed.

So much snowflake thinking. It’s the media, the democrats the deep state...

We’ve never this many ppl actively back a leader so prone and committed to his sense of martyrdom.


Republicans, could in fact back a primary challenger to Trump. For all the anger hurled at the democrats over this process, Trump’s party has skipped a chance to focus on holding their party head accountable, and has chosen to enable him.

He’s elected because Republicans elected him. If he wins re-election, the responsibility lies with those who voted for him.

I think for several people on here who say the Democratic options are unelectable or horrifying, there isn’t any potential democratic candidate they’d find acceptable. I think a lot of the those same people just find liberalism horrifying. Creek would find any selected candidate to be awful because they wouldn’t be conservative. Hillary was a far cry from the anti-Christ Ted and Creek would have you believe, for example. Unlikeable, but not some potential catastrophe.

[creekster]

There is this weird anti-conservative philosophy stuff that pops up in these threads: Democrats got Trump elected. They went with Hillary, it’s their fault the GOP selected an immoral, unstable and embarrassing guy.

For all the talk of being responsible for one’s actions, the logic that democrats are to blame for Trump being elected, let alone mostly to blame as creek would assert, is really incongruent and ultimately lazy and flawed.

So much snowflake thinking. It’s the media, the democrats the deep state...

We’ve never this many ppl actively back a leader so prone and committed to his sense of martyrdom.


Republicans, could in fact back a primary challenger to Trump. For all the anger hurled at the democrats over this process, Trump’s party has skipped a chance to focus on holding their party head accountable, and has chosen to enable him.

He’s elected because Republicans elected him. If he wins re-election, the responsibility lies with those who voted for him.

I think for several people on here who say the Democratic options are unelectable or horrifying, there isn’t any potential democratic candidate they’d find acceptable. I think a lot of the those same people just find liberalism horrifying. Creek would find any selected candidate to be awful because they wouldn’t be conservative. Hillary was a far cry from the anti-Christ Ted and Creek would have you believe, for example. Unlikeable, but not some potential catastrophe.

Frank, I voted for Clinton. Don't lecture me about my view of the choices. But it seems pretty clear to me how this is affecting MOR voters.

[PaloAltoCougar]

McConnell and Graham, both of whom have specifically said they are not and will not be impartial and will do everything they can do to acquit Trump, are required to swear an oath that they will be impartial during the Senate trial. Will they recuse themselves? I don't think any senator is truly impartial, but why would they announce that they will violate their oath?

One other, and very unrelated, thought... It's kind of funny that Jim Comey, who obviously loathes Trump, may be more responsible than any other individual for both Trump's election (the "reopening the investigation" announcement shortly before Election Day), and for his acquittal and reelection (his sloppy handling of the Russia investigation, etc.). Although publicly calling Comey the "most corrupt" FBI official in history (typically moronic and hyperbolic Trump), Trump should be sending Comey a very nice Christmas basket.

[falafel]

Republicans, could in fact back a primary challenger to Trump.

That's hilarious. Why would any party ever challenger their own incumbent President in a primary? Fracture your base and risk losing the Presidency entirely. And before you get all sanctimonious and claim that Republicans should put the country above their party, that is not how political parties -- Republican or Democrat -- operate. Exhibit A - the Democrats' approach to impeachment.

[UVACoug]

McConnell and Graham, both of whom have specifically said they are not and will not be impartial and will do everything they can do to acquit Trump, are required to swear an oath that they will be impartial during the Senate trial. Will they recuse themselves? I don't think any senator is truly impartial, but why would they announce that they will violate their oath?

One other, and very unrelated, thought... It's kind of funny that Jim Comey, who obviously loathes Trump, may be more responsible than any other individual for both Trump's election (the "reopening the investigation" announcement shortly before Election Day), and for his acquittal and reelection (his sloppy handling of the Russia investigation, etc.). Although publicly calling Comey the "most corrupt" FBI official in history (typically moronic and hyperbolic Trump), Trump should be sending Comey a very nice Christmas basket.

Should all the Democratic Senators that have made public statements making clear that their mind is made up that Trump is guilty or corruption, abuse of power, and criminality be recused as well? Here's just a few examples ... I imagine there are plenty more:

Sen. Bob Casey (Pa.)

Casey is the most recent senator to call for impeachment proceedings, and he's one of the most moderate Senate Democrats to do so.
“Given this clear abuse of power, I believe I have an obligation to outline the conduct, both during the Russian investigation and the Ukraine matter, that is within the well-established definition of the ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ that the Senate would consider in an impeachment trial,” he said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.
“Surely, not every instance of presidential wrongdoing merits impeachment. Using the vast powers of impeachment in a cavalier fashion would be an insult to our Constitution,” Casey added. “However, a failure by Congress to pursue impeachment in the face of grave offenses by the President is just as insulting to our Constitution and our values.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.)

Murphy announced his support for an impeachment inquiry Tuesday, saying, “It is now my belief that the House of Representatives must begin an impeachment inquiry into the president’s corrupt efforts to press a foreign nation into the service of his reelection campaign.”
Murphy had been sharply critical of the handling of the whistleblower report before coming out in favor of an impeachment inquiry, particularly after Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) questioned whether the whistleblower was a “leaker.”
"This is just a head shaking moment for me that Republicans don't give a damn about the national security of this country and are willing to let the president get away with this fundamental corruption," Murphy said Monday. "If that is the direction that they take—attacking the whistleblower, trying to cover up this corruption, it's a really, really sad day for the country."

Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii)

Schatz called for impeachment on Monday.
“[Trump] and his legal team argue that a sitting president’s authorities are so vast that they literally transcend the law. They argue that the Congress has a remedy for this criminality and defiance – the impeachment process,” Schatz said in a statement Monday.
“If that is their view, so be it. On behalf of the people who elected us, we must formalize and accelerate the impeachment process so that Congress, by exercising its responsibility under Article 1 of the Constitution, can provide some measure of accountability,” he added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-trump-ukraine

With all due respect, I find the suggestion that Senators must be neutral and unbiased when considering the articles of impeachment to be laughable. No one believes that will ever happen, on either side. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal or criminal one. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't find it too troubling that the Senate majority leader acknowledges that.