The Impeachment of President Trump

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

There are people there. There women and children there. Being raped, tortured, murdered or fleeing for their lives. The leader of the purportedly free world is a racist, and statements like this one make it clear that he believes all of his supporters are racists as well.

Which they are.

[Aimless]

But important to remember that POTUS is also an idiot

Twitter Link

[Aimless]

Hard to keep up with this bullshit

[Lewkowski]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pel...chment-inquiry

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced after meeting with the House Democratic caucus on Tuesday that there will be no vote -- at least for now -- on the launch of formal impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

"There's no requirement that we have a vote, and so at this time we will not be having a vote," Pelosi said. "We're not here to call bluffs -- we're here to find the truth, to uphold the Constitution of the United States. This is not a game for us. This is deadly serious.""

LOL - if she had the goods and thought she would succeed the vote would have been held. This is just another attempt to engineer an election. If she puts the red district Democrats on the spot and it goes nowhere she fears losing the House. This isn't the play of someone who thinks impeachment can work. She wants to dominate the media attention on Trump = bad in the run up to 2020 without actually risking the House majority.

From a logical perspective the biggest benefit of four more years of Trump is solidifying the number of conservatives on the Supreme Court and lower courts. But hot damn would it be fun to see liberals gnash their teeth with rage if Trump not only got re-elected but once again had Republican majorities in House and Senate. That's really what has me rooting for him. If you thought the liberal reaction to 2016 was bad? Can you imagine the absolute shit that would be lost if he gets reelected this way?

[Loki]

Have you considered moving to Russia? The process of destroying democracy that you so enjoy is much further along there.

[Lewkowski]

Have you considered moving to Russia? The process of destroying democracy that you so enjoy is much further along there.

Destroying democracy? Has Trump decided to stop holding elections? Are his enemies dying of radiation poison. The comparison is laughable.

It always does amuse me how some people use the phrase democracy so incorrectly as well. Having people vote to say eliminate freedom of speech, right to bear arms and the ability to drink alcohol would all be democratic, awful but democratic. Democracy just means letting people vote freely.

[Aimless]

Like I said, you're a very stupid manling.

[EyeKhan]

I can only imagine the "What the Fucks" when the Turks read that letter. It's embarrassing to the extreme and that dumb fuck is pathologically incapable of feeling the shame it generates for sane people.

[Aimless]

I can only imagine the "What the Fucks" when the Turks read that letter. It's embarrassing to the extreme and that dumb fuck is pathologically incapable of feeling the shame it generates for sane people.

Twitter Link

POTUS is a racist and an idiot, as are all of his supporters.

[Being]

... as are all of his supporters.

Everyone in the USA is related to at least one.

[GGT]

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced after meeting with the House Democratic caucus on Tuesday that there will be no vote -- at least for now -- on the launch of formal impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

"There's no requirement that we have a vote, and so at this time we will not be having a vote," Pelosi said. "We're not here to call bluffs -- we're here to find the truth, to uphold the Constitution of the United States. This is not a game for us. This is deadly serious.""

LOL - if she had the goods and thought she would succeed the vote would have been held. This is just another attempt to engineer an election. If she puts the red district Democrats on the spot and it goes nowhere she fears losing the House. This isn't the play of someone who thinks impeachment can work. She wants to dominate the media attention on Trump = bad in the run up to 2020 without actually risking the House majority.

Pelosi is right -- there is no requirement to hold a formal vote at this stage (because congress changed the rules after Clinton's impeachment). And you're ignoring the fact that she was reluctant to start an impeachment inquiry -- which angered a lot of people -- not because impeachment can't work but because it's a divisive political process.

It's also a constitutional duty/mandate for congress to conduct oversight of the executive branch; those checks-and-balances are deadly serious. When you "LOL" you're just exposing flimsy, hypocritical Lolbertarian 'principles'. Also, no one dominates media attention more than Trump, so it's weird you think Pelosi can change that dynamic.

From a logical perspective the biggest benefit of four more years of Trump is solidifying the number of conservatives on the Supreme Court and lower courts. But hot damn would it be fun to see liberals gnash their teeth with rage if Trump not only got re-elected but once again had Republican majorities in House and Senate. That's really what has me rooting for him. If you thought the liberal reaction to 2016 was bad? Can you imagine the absolute shit that would be lost if he gets reelected this way?

Well, there it is. You want to make lib'ruls cry more than anything, and you don't care how it's done, or what else is lost. You *root* for a scam artist that's conned the (R) party and corrupted the US government because he might stack the courts with 'conservative' judges....never mind that the constitution and Rule-of-Law has been trashed along the way.

[Lewkowski]

Pelosi is right -- there is no requirement to hold a formal vote at this stage (because congress changed the rules after Clinton's impeachment). And you're ignoring the fact that she was reluctant to start an impeachment inquiry -- which angered a lot of people -- not because impeachment can't work but because it's a divisive political process.

There are two possibilities. Trump is guilty of what the Dems claim or Trump is innocent of what the Dems claim. If he is guilty than wouldn't it be best for him to be removed quickly and not toward the end of 2020 when the majority of his term is done? What the hell is the point of an impeachment process that takes as long as the entire term of office? These fools were preaching day 1 of his presidency that he needed to be impeached.

It is the naked political calculation here that I despise. Mueller took forever, his report was released, nothing happened. Now we have a new shiny thing for Pelosi to try to use, oh look just in time for election season. The whole point was to weaken the presidency and keep the shadow of impeachment in everyone's minds through the entire term. The use of this process is a subversion of justice. Either he's guilty and needs to be removed fast or he's not guilty and this is a truly evil partisan witch hunt. Either way Pelosi is garbage.

[GGT]

There are two possibilities. Trump is guilty of what the Dems claim or Trump is innocent of what the Dems claim. If he is guilty than wouldn't it be best for him to be removed quickly and not toward the end of 2020 when the majority of his term is done? What the hell is the point of an impeachment process that takes as long as the entire term of office? These fools were preaching day 1 of his presidency that he needed to be impeached.

The "point" is that gathering evidence and witnesses takes time. Justice isn't always speedy.

It is the naked political calculation here that I despise. Mueller took forever, his report was released, nothing happened. Now we have a new shiny thing for Pelosi to try to use, oh look just in time for election season. The whole point was to weaken the presidency and keep the shadow of impeachment in everyone's minds through the entire term. The use of this process is a subversion of justice. Either he's guilty and needs to be removed fast or he's not guilty and this is a truly evil partisan witch hunt. Either way Pelosi is garbage.

Your black and white view is what's garbage. You didn't acknowledge Mueller's findings (that Russia messed with our elections) or that Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator in at least 10 felony crimes.

You can't despise the 'naked political calculation' without condemning Trump's behavior. The evidence is clear and growing that Trump has violated his oath of office. But removing a sitting president shouldn't be FAST, because the process is deliberately methodical and slow. The impeachment process isn't a subversion of justice, but the constitution in action, so "get over it".

[LittleFuzzy]

There are two possibilities. Trump is guilty of what the Dems claim or Trump is innocent of what the Dems claim. If he is guilty than wouldn't it be best for him to be removed quickly and not toward the end of 2020 when the majority of his term is done?

Except it doesn't matter whether he's innocent or guilty because even if the House votes on and impeaches Trump there still isn't a chance in hell there's going to be a supermajority in the Senate who will vote to convict on any impeachment charges.

What the hell is the point of an impeachment process that takes as long as the entire term of office?

Well, when the entire first half of that term is covered by a Judiciary chair that stonewalls and covers for you. . .

Now we have a new shiny thing for Pelosi to try to use, oh look just in time for election season. The whole point was to weaken the presidency and keep the shadow of impeachment in everyone's minds through the entire term.

Bull. You said yourself earlier, she didn't want to start impeachment proceedings at all. She knew it couldn't be carried through to completion. But after the latest move Trump made in the Ukraine she didn't have a choice, enough Dems were furious and out for blood that it would have been launched regardless so she didn't have much choice to go along with it. Now she's trying to manage the process so that Trump can make as little political hay as possible out of the way his base has so many GOP senators cowed and running scared.

[GGT]

....his base has so many GOP senators cowed and running scared.

They're not even Republicans at this point, but Trumpistas.

[Lewkowski]

Except it doesn't matter whether he's innocent or guilty because even if the House votes on and impeaches Trump there still isn't a chance in hell there's going to be a supermajority in the Senate who will vote to convict on any impeachment charges.



Well, when the entire first half of that term is covered by a Judiciary chair that stonewalls and covers for you. . .



Bull. You said yourself earlier, she didn't want to start impeachment proceedings at all. She knew it couldn't be carried through to completion. But after the latest move Trump made in the Ukraine she didn't have a choice, enough Dems were furious and out for blood that it would have been launched regardless so she didn't have much choice to go along with it. Now she's trying to manage the process so that Trump can make as little political hay as possible out of the way his base has so many GOP senators cowed and running scared.

The Mueller investigation begin before the Dems won the House, and at any point Trump could have seen the special council fired as he was working for the DOJ. While this wouldn't have gone over well politically, it was well within his rights as the head of the executive branch to do so. However since he knew there wouldn't be anything to come from the witch hunt he didn't do that. Republican did try to get him to hurry the fuck up but Meuller took his sweet ass time so that the Democrats could take back the House.

Again again we are back to square one with Pelsoi. She is doing this for political purposes not to remove remove Trump (I'm sure she would love to do that too but that's not her call). The use of impeachment for political purposes like this isn't healthy for the country. And if that was her view, changing it because she worried about losing her speaker-ship speaks volumes about what it is important to her.

[Aimless]

The Mueller investigation led to three dozen indictments and documented—in great detail—obstruction of justice on the part of the president. Had Trump fired him, even Republican senators wouldn't have been able to deny that it would've constituted an egregious act of obstruction.

[LittleFuzzy]

The Mueller investigation begin before the Dems won the House, and at any point Trump could have seen the special council fired as he was working for the DOJ. While this wouldn't have gone over well politically, it was well within his rights as the head of the executive branch to do so. However since he knew there wouldn't be anything to come from the witch hunt he didn't do that.

He didn't do it because his advisors managed to sit on him since it would have been far worse than "not going over well politically." The Mueller investigation happened because Trump had already fired Comey for investigating. If he'd fired Mueller (which yes, was technically within his power to do) it would have resulted in a revolt in both houses and the ressurection of the Special Prosecutor law.

Again again we are back to square one with Pelsoi. She is doing this for political purposes not to remove remove Trump (I'm sure she would love to do that too but that's not her call). The use of impeachment for political purposes like this isn't healthy for the country. And if that was her view, changing it because she worried about losing her speaker-ship speaks volumes about what it is important to her.

The exact same logic tells us that if she genuinely things Trump OUGHT to be impeached and convicted than she has an ethical duty to engage in impeachment proceedings even if she doesn't think she can secure a conviction. And I'm personally convinced that she does in fact think Trump ought to be impeached. I think the odds are favorable even you think she genuinely feels Trump ought to be impeached. Your nefarious "political purposes" are, in fact, the only reason which justifies NOT pursuing impeachment since pursuing it provides a potential "win" for Trump to crow about during the campaign.

[Flixy]

The Mueller investigation led to three dozen indictments and documented—in great detail—obstruction of justice on the part of the president. Had Trump fired him, even Republican senators wouldn't have been able to deny that it would've constituted an egregious act of obstruction.

Let's not forget that the reason Trump wasn't indicted is that the DoJ has a policy that the president should be charged via impeachment. It's weird how the white house now claims they want a criminal trial instead of "unconstitutional" impeachment procedures... After the executive branch stated it can't.

[Aimless]

Let's not forget that the reason Trump wasn't indicted is that the DoJ has a policy that the president should be charged via impeachment. It's weird how the white house now claims they want a criminal trial instead of "unconstitutional" impeachment procedures... After the executive branch stated it can't.

This is why I make a point of always reminding Lewk that the Mueller report clearly described conduct on Trump's part that amounts to obstruction of justice

Meanwhile, the stooge dept. has run into a bit of a problem:

Twitter Link

Who could've imagined conducting foreign policy via Twitter wouldn't be easy?

[Lewkowski]

If the Mueller report clearly showed obstruction why didn't Democrats act until the Ukraine nonsense? Impeachment vote was held 3 times and failed to muster enough support. Either Pelsoi didn't believe the Mueller report was sufficient or she was negligent in her constitutional duty due to politics. Pick your poison.

[Loki]

Because of people like you who'd never admit it was enough.

[Aimless]

If the Mueller report clearly showed obstruction why didn't Democrats act until the Ukraine nonsense?

Because republican congressmen and the illiterate halfwits that voted them into congress—and, just to be clear, you count as being subliterate at best—don't care about the law, as democrats know from three years of Republican failures to uphold the law against Trump's brazen criminality—and as we're seeing once again with Republican reactions to Trump corruptly soliciting foreign intervention into an American election, using public funds as leverage. Republican congressmen have made a public commitment, to disregard their constitutional duties due to politics, and to prevent congress from performing its most important functions wrt the executive; it's not even negligence—republican congressmen are either corrupt or cowardly. I'm honestly not sure how stupid you must be to have thought that you were making a clever argument. The answer to your inane question is simply that Pelosi knows that Republican congressmen and their supporters are gutless cretins. Thank you for pointing that out, genius.

[Lewkowski]

Because republican congressmen and the illiterate halfwits that voted them into congress—and, just to be clear, you count as being subliterate at best—don't care about the law, as democrats know from three years of Republican failures to uphold the law against Trump's brazen criminality—and as we're seeing once again with Republican reactions to Trump corruptly soliciting foreign intervention into an American election, using public funds as leverage. Republican congressmen have made a public commitment, to disregard their constitutional duties due to politics, and to prevent congress from performing its most important functions wrt the executive; it's not even negligence—republican congressmen are either corrupt or cowardly. I'm honestly not sure how stupid you must be to have thought that you were making a clever argument. The answer to your inane question is simply that Pelosi knows that Republican congressmen and their supporters are gutless cretins. Thank you for pointing that out, genius.

Ah so your argument is that Pelosi was negligent in her constitutional duties and cared more about preserving her power than in doing what was right.

[Steely Glint]

Ah so your argument is that Pelosi was negligent in her constitutional duties and cared more about preserving her power than in doing what was right.

[Aimless]

Ah so your argument is that Pelosi was negligent in her constitutional duties and cared more about preserving her power than in doing what was right.

Re-read. If you have difficulties reading, ask for help.

[GGT]

Let's not forget that the reason Trump wasn't indicted is that the DoJ has a policy that the president should be charged via impeachment. It's weird how the white house now claims they want a criminal trial instead of "unconstitutional" impeachment procedures... After the executive branch stated it can't.

And AG Barr gave a press conference -- just before the Mueller report was made public -- that was highly misleading (if not downright false) saying Trump was exonerated....because a DoJ *memo* says a sitting president can't be indicted.

Trump's legal team is using Presidential Immunity (or Executive Privilege) for everything, even for releasing pertinent tax info.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...someone-055648

[GGT]

Moving right along.....

I wonder if that "secure server" -- where Trump's phone calls with Ukraine's president were moved to -- might also have 'incriminating' calls with Putin or Erdogan. And if they can be subpoenaed, like Nixon's tapes were.

[Wraith]

John Bolton is negotiating to testify in favor of impeachment.

[Being]

John Bolton is negotiating to testify in favor of impeachment.

So is Giuliani...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...-cash-n1071901