The Impeachment Thread

#29,301
#29,301
McDad said:
I've heard a lot of fear mongering from both sides in my 48 years. I am sure you have, too. I cannot recall any politician's fearful prediction which came true ...or was even close to what actually transpired.
Click to expand...

Me either, I have seen and felt the effects of bad policy from various politicians but nothing close to the dire armageddonish prognostications we hear every election. We as a people tend to adapt and overcome bad policy and politicians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb, NurseGoodVol and McDad
#29,302
#29,302
MontyPython said:
Must be fun to be a spineless, soul less politician ... Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell. Thank god "normal" Americans don't take after our so called "leaders".

View attachment 246169

In 1999, Mitch McConnell voted to impeach former President Bill Clinton, saying the President "lied — deliberately and methodically" to the American people.

According to his closed-door impeachment statement, which was released into Congressional record in February 1999, McConnell found Clinton guilty of two articles of impeachment — and said both warrant his removal from office.

"I believe that William Jefferson Clinton has abused and violated that public trust," McConnell said at the time.

He continued:

"His cold, calculated actions betrayed the trust vested in him by the American people and the high office of the presidency. The President of the United States looked 270 million Americans in the eye, and lied--deliberately and methodically. He took an oath to faithfully execute the laws of this nation, and he violated that oath. He pledged to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer, and he violated that pledge. He took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and he willfully and repeatedly violated that oath."​
McConnell — who today is the Senate Majority Leader — has said there is "no chance" President Trump will be removed from office.

“We all know how it's going to end. There is no chance the President is going to be removed from office," he told Fox News last week.

You can read McConnell's full statement from 1999 here.
Click to expand...
Yep. And NadLess said that a partisan impeachment wold be a travesty. Clinton's impeachment wasn't partisan... this is. ANd the Republicans regretted it. I can only imagine how you idiots are gonna feel after next November
 
#29,303
#29,303
McDad said:
The second article is ill defined to me. Obstruction of Congress is vague. I suspect intentionally so; but i readily admit that is because of my profound distrust of politicians. Perhaps obstruction of congress means obstruction of congressional impeachment. Or, maybe OoC means obstruction of the constitution. The cynic in me says OoC could simply mean gridlock with the Congress.

Clinton's impeachment was well defined as perjury (i don't know how many articles were voted on). I don't remember Johnson's. Also, don't recall what Nixon's would have been had he not resigned.
Click to expand...

Have you read them? It’s only two pages.

Read the full text of the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump
 
#29,305
#29,305
RockyTop85 said:
How is that a superior than “the president has to turn over documents sought by congress or risk impeachment?”

Please address the fact that it’s been almost a year since the democrats took Congress and has been almost 8 months since the Mueller report and the subpoena of Don McGahn hasn’t even been ruled on by a circuit court.
Click to expand...

So we're back to expediency over doing it right?

The wheels of justice turn slow, you of all people should know that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#29,307
#29,307
RockyTop85 said:
How is that a superior than “the president has to turn over documents sought by congress or risk impeachment?”

Please address the fact that it’s been almost a year since the democrats took Congress and has been almost 8 months since the Mueller report and the subpoena of Don McGahn hasn’t even been ruled on by a circuit court.
Click to expand...
So your solution is to charge a crime "obstruction of Congress" that may or may not be a crime once it is ruled on in court?

Makes sense.
 
#29,308
#29,308
hog88 said:
So we're back to expediency over doing it right?

The wheels of justice turn slow, you of all people should know that.
Click to expand...
There’s no authority to support that what you’re proposing is “right.” And you apparently can’t support it as better than what’s happening.
 
#29,311
#29,311
McDad said:
I haven't. Are they fairly easy to understand for those with no background or education in legalese?
Click to expand...

I’m sorry, it’s 9 pages. Apparently the whole thing hadn’t loaded.

I think they use some stupid, unnecessarily obscure words, like “arrogate,” but it’s mostly underatandable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#29,312
#29,312
RockyTop85 said:
There’s no authority to support that what you’re proposing is “right.” And you apparently can’t support it as better than what’s happening.
Click to expand...

No authority? There are three branches of government for a reason and throughout our history the courts have played tiebreaker numerous times during disputes between the legislative and executive branches. You even linked and referenced how the courts ruled against Nixon when he tried to withhold documents from congress.

You are simply arguing (badly) for expedience.
 
#29,313
#29,313
hog88 said:
No authority? There are three branches of government for a reason and throughout our history the courts have played tiebreaker numerous times during disputes between the legislative and executive branches. You even linked and referenced how the courts ruled against Nixon when he tried to withhold documents from congress.

You are simply arguing (badly) for expedience.
Click to expand...
Spoiler: U.S. v. Nixon wasn’t framed as a dispute between the Legislative and the Executive. Read the case.
 
#29,314
#29,314
MontyPython said:
For those of us who think Trump is a horrible president now, god help us all if he gets a second term.

Completely. Unhinged.

And the Congress will officially neuter itself her shortly my summarily dismissing impeachment as a partisan hack.

President 1
Checks and Balances 0

This is not a good thing. Don't care where you sit on the aisle.
Click to expand...


It's their own fault. They didn't have to keep feeding the POTUS Miracle Grow. I'm a very sane and level headed person, don't have twitter, rarely look at my facebook, etc. But, if I was elected POTUS and the other side came at me from day 1 like they do him, just for winning, I would be 99% good to go unhinged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and NurseGoodVol
#29,317
#29,317
GVF said:
you weren't too concerned about "first hand" during the testimonies when they were all NOT first hand.
Click to expand...
LOL....Who is firsthand? Hint: the ones being kept from testifying by Trump.
Is it starting to dawn on you???
 
#29,318
#29,318
McDad said:
Luther finds him credible. I assume you do too even though you previously saw him as a criminal?
Click to expand...
He was before he amended his first testimony. Now he is a cooperating witness with "firsthand" knowledge of Trump's/Giuliani's efforts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#29,319
#29,319
luthervol said:
What witnesses were denied that had first hand knowledge of the charges against Trump? Did those witness have more knowledge than the ones Trump kept from testifying?
Click to expand...

Witnesses testified that DID NOT have first hand knowledge.
 
#29,320
#29,320
RockyTop85 said:
I’m sorry, it’s 9 pages. Apparently the whole thing hadn’t loaded.

I think they use some stupid, unnecessarily obscure words, like “arrogate,” but it’s mostly underatandable.
Click to expand...
I suppose it is too much to ask for an objective summary? Not from you (unless you feel so compelled) but as a link?
 
#29,324
#29,324
luthervol said:
It's always mattered. Trump is the roadblock.
Click to expand...
Luth, what you said about proving innocence makes me hope you never get called as a juror from this point forward. That is a scary mindset and you should never be in a position to effect innocent lives with your judgement.

You need to rediscover the definition of your standards and principles in regards to justice at the macro level. I'm genuinely concerned, all differences aside, this needs to be fixed. Go read: False Justice: Eight Myths that Convict the Innocent by Jim and Nancy Petro
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top