Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 228

Thread: The Impeachment of President Trump

  1. #1

    Default The Impeachment of President Trump

    Q: Will the Republican-controlled Senate actually hold an Impeachment trial if the House sends them Articles of Impeachment?

    It's not clear that the Senate shall or must; it's just assumed they would, as part of regular order and congressional norms.

    But since obliterating established norms is routine for the Trump Party (previously known as the GOP)....I'm wondering if the Senate can just refuse/deny an Impeachment trial, or delay it so long it doesn't happen before the 2020 elections?

    And if they can, do you think they will?

  2. #2
    I see no reason why they wouldn't. The faster they get a not guilty verdict the faster they can lord or it over the Dems in the election.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I see no reason why they wouldn't.
    Because the facts could be damning, and clearly "impeachable" offenses. If Republicans voted to impeach Clinton (for perjury about a blow job) but don't vote to impeach Trump (for enlisting foreign help in his election and/or using tax dollars to extort dirt on his opponent), GOP 'political principles' risk being exposed as a total sham.

    The faster they get a not guilty verdict the faster they can lord or it over the Dems in the election.
    You don't even know what the charges will be, but you've already made up your mind that Trump is innocent....and that an Impeachment trial will be a winning campaign message? Like I said, your 'principles' are showing.



    I was hoping some constitutional nerd could tell me what the Senate is required to do if/when the House sends them Articles of Impeachment, or if the (R) political leadership can throw a monkey wrench into the process.....

  4. #4
    Except Clinton wasn't removed from office.

    Impeachment is a massive grey area in the Constitution. It's somewhat proscribed, but very open ended in terms of its requirements. Fundamentally it's a political tool, and as a matter of politics it seems unlikely that the Senate Majority Leader would withhold a vote.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Except Clinton wasn't removed from office.

    Impeachment is a massive grey area in the Constitution. It's somewhat proscribed, but very open ended in terms of its requirements. Fundamentally it's a political tool, and as a matter of politics it seems unlikely that the Senate Majority Leader would withhold a vote.
    I disagree - there is too much to gain by having the vote and having the majority vote not guilty. Furthermore it puts the Democratic red state senators (a few of them actually exist) in a wonderfully awkward position. Do they have their re-election chances destroyed? Or do they vote with the Rs and then the Rs can crow about how not even all Democrats thought Trump should be impeached.

    If the House votes to impeach I think we see the turtle push for a very quick and short 'trial' and get a vote done ASAP.

  6. #6
    I'm not convinced that McConnell would immediately convene a Senate trial since he has a history of stalling and stonewalling. The first primaries will be in Feb. so timing is important. (If I'm wondering about this, surely the GOP and DNC is, too?)

    My other question about the Impeachment process is how the consequences of a guilty verdict are drafted in the Articles of Impeachment: Censure vs removal from office?

    I would like a way to hold this president accountable for flagrant Abuse of of Power, but I'm not sure I want him removed from office....making VP Pence our new president. Pence wouldn't just pardon Trump for any/everything, he might turn the presidency into a Christian theocracy.

  7. #7
    I wonder if Trump will encourage a Civil War to distract his base from this inquiry?
    .

  8. #8
    lololololol
    .
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  9. #9
    Mike Murphy, a Republican election consultant, recently remarked that “one Republican senator told me if it was a secret vote, 30 Republican senators would vote to impeach Trump.” Everyone understands that Mr. Trump is wildly popular with conservative voters, and that Senate Republicans would rather not invite primary challengers by alienating them. But when the legitimacy and preservation of our democracy are at stake, striving to keep a Senate seat safe through craven betrayal of the American people could come at a catastrophic price to the country.
    Source

  10. #10
    LOL dream on, unless that senator is Mitt Romney being an ass I doubt any Republican senator said those words.

  11. #11
    Jfc, this clown is not only dangerously unhinged but also just plain contemptible. This is Trump openly trying to destroy NATO from within, throwing an ally under the bus and undermining US interests at the same time. So utterly disgusting.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  12. #12
    Joint press conference with Finland and the reporter wants to ask about Ukraine? That does seem rude and a slap in the face of our ally. Doubling down on slamming the biased media is winning card for Trump and he should be doing it even more often but with more specifics.

    "Y'all are corrupt, let me give you an example..." He's got so many easy ones to choose from his staff should give him a list and and he can pull them up by the organization asking him the question.

    CNN... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/b...-on-trump.html

    MSNBC... https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...ssia-finanaces

    Heck sometimes the international news gets involved say the Telegraph... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...r-article.html

    Trump needs to make it clear to the American people with facts that the media is firmly planted against him and that people shouldn't trust a thing they report. He can't do it by simply repeating that they are fake news, they are corrupt etc, he needs to be specific.

  13. #13
    Trump threw both NATO and Ukraine under the bus in that unhinged rant, and showed Finland what kind of commitment it can expect from the US—none at all. The reporter conducted himself like a champ. Everyone was deeply embarrassed at the sight of POTUS shitting himself.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Joint press conference with Finland and the reporter wants to ask about Ukraine? That does seem rude and a slap in the face of our ally. Doubling down on slamming the biased media is winning card for Trump and he should be doing it even more often but with more specifics.

    "Y'all are corrupt, let me give you an example..." He's got so many easy ones to choose from his staff should give him a list and and he can pull them up by the organization asking him the question.

    CNN... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/b...-on-trump.html

    MSNBC... https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...ssia-finanaces

    Heck sometimes the international news gets involved say the Telegraph... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...r-article.html

    Trump needs to make it clear to the American people with facts that the media is firmly planted against him and that people shouldn't trust a thing they report. He can't do it by simply repeating that they are fake news, they are corrupt etc, he needs to be specific.
    And why should the American people trust a thing Donald Trump says? He is a pathological liar.

  15. #15
    Remember the Lewk quote when he complains about big government or talks about libertarianism.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Trump threw both NATO and Ukraine under the bus in that unhinged rant, and showed Finland what kind of commitment it can expect from the US—none at all. The reporter conducted himself like a champ. Everyone was deeply embarrassed at the sight of POTUS shitting himself.
    In what way is he throwing Ukraine and NATO under the bus? Trump has loudly and frequently took NATO to the task for not following the 2% GDP rule. He called Ukraine a big beautiful wall... which you know is probably the highest compliment Trump give someone.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    And why should the American people trust a thing Donald Trump says? He is a pathological liar.
    That's why the specifics are key. People are already distrustful of politicians, its time they became more distrustful of the media.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Remember the Lewk quote when he complains about big government or talks about libertarianism.
    Eh? Bashing the press isn't big government.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    That's why the specifics are key. People are already distrustful of politicians, its time they became more distrustful of the media.
    Does this mean you're going to start becoming more distrustful of the crap you read on Breitbart, Fox News and god knows where else, or is it more that you want people to become more distrustful of mainstream media and start becoming more trustful of wild-eyed Facebook posts, 8chan and racist Twitter bots?
    Why do we build the wall, my children, my children? We build the wall to keep us free.
    How does the wall keep us free, my children, my children? The wall keeps out the enemy. And we build the wall to keep us free.
    Who do we call the enemy, my children, my children? The enemy is poverty. And the wall keeps out the enemy. And we build the wall to keep us free.
    That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. Because we have and they have not, my children, my my children. Because they want what we have got.
    What do we have that they should want, my children, my children? We have a wall to work upon. We have work and they have none. And our work is never done. And the war is never won.
    The enemy is poverty, the wall keeps out the enemy, and we build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall, we build the wall to keep us free.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Does this mean you're going to start becoming more distrustful of the crap you read on Breitbart, Fox News and god knows where else, or is it more that you want people to become more distrustful of mainstream media and start becoming more trustful of wild-eyed Facebook posts, 8chan and racist Twitter bots?
    I'm already pretty discerning.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I'm already pretty discerning.
    This website is free ladies and gentlemen.
    Why do we build the wall, my children, my children? We build the wall to keep us free.
    How does the wall keep us free, my children, my children? The wall keeps out the enemy. And we build the wall to keep us free.
    Who do we call the enemy, my children, my children? The enemy is poverty. And the wall keeps out the enemy. And we build the wall to keep us free.
    That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. Because we have and they have not, my children, my my children. Because they want what we have got.
    What do we have that they should want, my children, my children? We have a wall to work upon. We have work and they have none. And our work is never done. And the war is never won.
    The enemy is poverty, the wall keeps out the enemy, and we build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall, we build the wall to keep us free.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    LOL dream on, unless that senator is Mitt Romney being an ass I doubt any Republican senator said those words.
    https://www.newsweek.com/flake-35-re...lities-1461952

  23. #23
    Oh Flake lol, the former senator.

  24. #24
    This helps explain much of the mystifying conversation I see between Lewk and pretty much everyone else on this forum. I used to think that he's just trolling you all, having a little fun at your expense, but after a while I had to accept he actually does, more or less, believe (or maybe "intentionally support in spite of reality" is the better description?) much of the nonsense.

    And honestly, why you guys bother, is the bigger mystery. But I read because I find your rebuttals and explanations instructive, so there's that.


    This poll number proves how powerful Trump's misinformation machine really is


    (CNN)In a July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump asked his counterpart to look into debunked allegations of corruption by Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

    This is a fact. The Truth. How do we know? Because the White House released a rough transcript of the conversation last week in which Trump said this:

    "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."

    See, it's right there. In the transcript the White House released itself.

    All of which makes this next fact absolutely mystifying and terrifying: In a new national Monmouth University poll just four in 10 self-identified Republicans believe that Trump mentioned Biden in his call with Zelensky.

    Are. You. Kidding. Me.

    It is right there in the transcript that the WHITE HOUSE released of the call!

    Remember that we aren't talking here about whether Trump pressured Zelensky to look into the Bidens. He did, but there is a little bit of wiggle room there in that Trump didn't say "Unless you do this, I will withhold military aid from you." This poll question deals only with whether Trump actually mentioned Biden's name in the call. Which he 100% did!

    How can so many Republicans say he didn't? Because Trump has conditioned them to not believe things that are, quite literally, right in front of their faces.
    ....
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/polit...ipt/index.html
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Trump needs to make it clear to the American people with facts that the media is firmly planted against him and that people shouldn't trust a thing they report. He can't do it by simply repeating that they are fake news, they are corrupt etc, he needs to be specific.
    Fact: all the media needs to do is play video of Trump incriminating himself. He stood on the WH lawn and admitted he asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. He also said that Giuliani was doing a great job 'uncovering corruption' about the Bidens. Then he said China should investigate the Bidens, too!

    Fact: 'Biden corruption' is a conspiracy theory that's been debunked. Even Trump's former DHS advisor Bassert was frustrated that Giuliani (and others) were peddling this Krazy Kool-Aid, and that Trump believed them over our own Intelligence Agencies.

    Fact: We don't want foreign nations meddling in our elections. Even if it's "just" disinformation it's still a breach of national sovereignty and security. When the president invites that meddling it becomes an Impeachable offense.

    Fact: Even Judge Napolitano and Shepard Smith (also Chris Wallace?) from Fox News have made the argument that Trump has crossed the line.


    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    This helps explain much of the mystifying conversation I see between Lewk and pretty much everyone else on this forum. I used to think that he's just trolling you all, having a little fun at your expense, but after a while I had to accept he actually does, more or less, believe (or maybe "intentionally support in spite of reality" is the better description?) much of the nonsense.

    And honestly, why you guys bother, is the bigger mystery. But I read because I find your rebuttals and explanations instructive, so there's that.
    Yeah, I know what you mean. Watergate looms in the back of my mind. Republicans roundly supported Nixon until the tapes came to light, and then it was Republicans who forced Nixon to resign. They had "the out" they needed. I'm hoping that last minute change of mind can happen now, again.

  26. #26
    If there is a belief someone did a criminal wrongdoing (and there is ample circumstantial evidence with Hunter) there is no issue with Trump asking another country to investigate a probable crime. Hell its down right patriotic to expect American citizens to behave themselves overseas, it shows we hold ourselves to a higher standard.

    It would be an issue if Trump KNOWS there is nothing there and is still pushing another country to investigate. It would be an issue if Trump asked the other country to fabricate evidence in support of a false accusation.

  27. #27
    I'm also wondering if Trump's Impeachment might include VP Pence, AG Barr, and Sec. of State Pompeo impeachments, too.....

    Drain the Swamp, huh.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    If there is a belief someone did a criminal wrongdoing (and there is ample circumstantial evidence with Hunter) there is no issue with Trump asking another country to investigate a probable crime. Hell its down right patriotic to expect American citizens to behave themselves overseas, it shows we hold ourselves to a higher standard.
    Higher standards my ass. Hunter Biden didn't do anything criminal; not according to any Ukraine or US laws. If he did something unethical (like using his father's name to get business deals) then Ivanka and Jared are just as guilty. Nepotism is unfair and ugly, but it's not codified by law.

    What is NOT 'patriotic' (or constitutional) is to enlist the help of foreign nations in order to get elected. Opposition research has legal and moral limits. Why don't you understand that?

    It would be an issue if Trump KNOWS there is nothing there and is still pushing another country to investigate. It would be an issue if Trump asked the other country to fabricate evidence in support of a false accusation.
    Governing by conspiracy theory is the wackiest thing, but that's what Trump does. It only works after the press/media and institutional agencies have been portrayed as corrupted and not trust worthy ("don't believe what you're reading or hearing".)

    My question to you is....what DOES rise to the level of Impeachment?

  29. #29
    Hunter may be innocent of any wrong doing. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if Joe engaged in quid pro quo without his son's knowledge. We won't know if there is no investigation. And when Biden *brags* about getting the prosecutor in charge of investigating the company Hunter was working for... well maybe its time for Ukraine to take another look now that the Obama white house isn't pressuring them?

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Hunter may be innocent of any wrong doing. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if Joe engaged in quid pro quo without his son's knowledge. We won't know if there is no investigation. And when Biden *brags* about getting the prosecutor in charge of investigating the company Hunter was working for... well maybe its time for Ukraine to take another look now that the Obama white house isn't pressuring them?
    You do know that US legislators (including the GOP), along with EU leaders, and the IMF all wanted the first Ukraine prosecutor fired....because he *wasn't* prosecuting corruption, right? We went thru this pages ago, but VP Biden wasn't 'protecting' his son or acting on his own interests. That's a debunked conspiracy theory.

    You once asked us how we form our opinions -- and how much was based on 'gut feelings' vs fact. Now it's my turn to ask how you can ignore the facts when they contradict your gut? Would you be the Goldwater (R) who told Nixon he should resign...or are you the Roger Stone (R) that tattoed Nixon on their back? What exactly are your *principles*?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •