The Impeachment Thread

[hog88]

To "court". Is that a joke?

No.

Look, by being hasty the Dems have given Trump the 2020 election

 

[RockyTop85]

My mistake then.

So no other argument as to why Congress shouldn't have taken Trump to court over his "obstruction"?

Because they don’t have to and there’s no benefit to doing so.

 

[luthervol]

Witnesses testified that DID NOT have first hand knowledge.

Of course they did. Who had first hand knowledge that did not testify??????? And why?

 

[Matt2496]

Democrats have made their bed. Now they have to lie in it.

 

[luthervol]

No.

Look, by being hasty the Dems have given Trump the 2020 election

Only if people are foolish enough to vote for him. (but we know how that works)

 

[37L1]

Because they don’t have to and there’s no benefit to doing so.

Really? Even if the court rules executive privilege is not allowed for certain testimony/documents and those testimony/documents result in first hand witnessing/proof of possible violations of law by the President?

 

[Mick]

No.

Look, by being hasty the Dems have given Trump the 2020 election

Hasty? The dems have more than enough to expose the whole GOP.

 

[GVF]

What’s the standard for impeachment?

Whatever Schiff said it was...??

 

[hog88]

Because they don’t have to and there’s no benefit to doing so.

Mistake on their part then. If they had and Trump defied the court the Senate still might not have convicted and removed him but damn the campaign ads it would have delivered. They would have been able to and rightfully so call him a tyrant that defied all checks and balances which would play well with the "independents" and swing voters out there.

 

[37L1]

Hasty? The dems have more than enough to expose the whole GOP.

Your mind is a wondrous place of make believe and want to be. You should stay there. By yourself, alone.

 

[hog88]

Only if people are foolish enough to vote for him. (but we know how that works)

We do

 

[hog88]

Hasty? The dems have more than enough to expose the whole GOP.

I look forward to the exposure.

 

[GVF]

Of course they did. Who had first hand knowledge that did not testify??????? And why?

Fun game. let's do it again.

Why did people testify that did not have first hand? Why were they even called? Why was their testimony seemingly different under oath than it was under the basement floor??


Side bar: Not sure my son will be heading to GT. He once claimed he wanted to. He took college freshman comp as a HS JR and got a C.

 

[Fun coupon VOL]

Same here, oh well. Have you ever heard of SSRS?

No and to be honest I don’t keep up with any polling angencies

 

[Boston Vol]

Lol. Who said anything about your penchant for caring about Trump? Talk about trying to control a narrative.... I was referring to the rights disdain for polls post 2016. You are on the right, so yes, you guys. Own it.

If the RCP average is the standard, I'm totally good with that - though the polls there arent congruent with your 'spoiler' prediction which you guys seem to embrace.

I’m on the right? I’m 36 and have voted in 3 federal elections in my life. Twice for a Democrat and once for a republican.

 

[GVF]

Hasty? The dems have more than enough to expose the whole GOP.

That would be dangerous. they're all in bed together and they would expose themselves in the process.

 

[GVF]

I’m on the right? I’m 36 and have voted in 3 federal elections in my life. Twice for a Democrat and once for a republican.

So much for assumptions. He seems to get a lot of them wrong.

 

[McDad]

Because they don’t have to and there’s no benefit to doing so.

Can't a sitting president be compelled to testify before Congress or, at minimum, be deposed as Clinton was?

 

[RikidyBones]

Mistake on their part then. If they had and Trump defied the court the Senate still might not have convicted and removed him but damn the campaign ads it would have delivered. They would have been able to and rightfully so call him a tyrant that defied all checks and balances which would play well with the "independents" and swing voters out there.

As an independent, this would have spoken against Trump. I can confirm from my small, undefined bubble.

 

[Septic]

I’m on the right? I’m 36 and have voted in 3 federal elections in my life. Twice for a Democrat and once for a republican.

Fair enough then, I based my post on your consistent thumbs in the eye of the leftist posters here.

 

[McDad]

Fun game. let's do it again.

Why did people testify that did not have first hand? Why were they even called? Why was their testimony seemingly different under oath than it was under the basement floor??


Side bar: Not sure my son will be heading to GT. He once claimed he wanted to. He took college freshman comp as a HS JR and got a C.

In what ways did their testimony seem different when under oath?

 

[RikidyBones]

I’m on the right? I’m 36 and have voted in 3 federal elections in my life. Twice for a Democrat and once for a republican.

31 and the exact same thing. Amazing isnt it.

 

[Mick]

I look forward to the exposure.

Turn on the TV, read the "transcripts", look at the hypocrisy of Graham.

 

[hog88]

Turn on the TV, read the "transcripts", look at the hypocrisy of Graham.

I'll be looking at the trial.

 

[RockyTop85]

I suppose it is too much to ask for an objective summary? Not from you (unless you feel so compelled) but as a link?

Prelude: we are impeaching Donald Trump.

Article I: the president’s conduct violated his oath of office and abused his authority when he solicited foreign interference in a US election from Ukraine and sought to pressure Ukraine by conditioning official acts on the announcement of an investigation. these actions were motivated by political interest and contrary to our national security interest. (The details of who, what, and how are set forth as well, but it’s all about what you’d expect from reading here.)

Article II: the president’s conduct violated his oath of office when he defied subpoenas that were issued pursuant to this impeachment and directing his subordinates to defy valid subpoenas.
(There’s a discussion of the factual details as well as the constitutional theory involved that is basically what is being argued about, here.)

Wherefore: he should be removed from office and barred from holding public office in the future.