The Impeachment Thread

#1,976
#1,976
volfanhill said:
Can you name one thing Obama or Bush tried to do without opposition? And it doesn’t help the claim he is trying to drain the swamp when he has more lobbyists in his admin in 3 years then Obama or Bush did in 8.
Click to expand...
At least Obama didn't have opposition from his own party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#1,978
#1,978
Where do things stand on Republicans who have read the complaint and that are still defending Trump without equivocation?
 
#1,979
#1,979
Just to try to spark some diversity in the conversation:

I’m sick of attorneys propping up their conclusion that this is or isn’t impeachable conduct with their academic/legal credentials.

It is a political question. Which means all your NYU JDs and your former US Attorneys and your George Mason professors are no more qualified to say what’s a high crime and misdemeanor as the mouth breathers on this forum who think the Mueller Report didn’t show any evidence of Collusion or Obstruction.

A liberal democratic republic is government by consent of the people. It’s basically a hiring/firing decision.
 
#1,981
#1,981
RockyTop85 said:
Just to try to spark some diversity in the conversation:

I’m sick of attorneys propping up their conclusion that this is or isn’t impeachable conduct with their academic/legal credentials.

It is a political question. Which means all your NYU JDs and your former US Attorneys and your George Mason professors are no more qualified to say what’s a high crime and misdemeanor as the mouth breathers on this forum who think the Mueller Report didn’t show any evidence of Collusion or Obstruction.

A liberal democratic republic is government by consent of the people. It’s basically a hiring/firing decision.
Click to expand...
The evidence of collusion in the report was what exactly? I have forgotten.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#1,982
#1,982
RockyTop85 said:
Just to try to spark some diversity in the conversation:

I’m sick of attorneys propping up their conclusion that this is or isn’t impeachable conduct with their academic/legal credentials.

It is a political question. Which means all your NYU JDs and your former US Attorneys and your George Mason professors are no more qualified to say what’s a high crime and misdemeanor as the mouth breathers on this forum who think the Mueller Report didn’t show any evidence of Collusion or Obstruction.

A liberal democratic republic is government by consent of the people. It’s basically a hiring/firing decision.
Click to expand...
I would argue it’s a very dangerous practice to view impeachment as a political decision. I understand that congress themselves gets to play judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to determining what is, or is not, “a high crime or misdemeanor.” I would hope that in all cases rule of law would be what congress uses as their guideline.
 
#1,984
#1,984
RockyTop85 said:
Just to try to spark some diversity in the conversation:

I’m sick of attorneys propping up their conclusion that this is or isn’t impeachable conduct with their academic/legal credentials.

It is a political question. Which means all your NYU JDs and your former US Attorneys and your George Mason professors are no more qualified to say what’s a high crime and misdemeanor as the mouth breathers on this forum who think the Mueller Report didn’t show any evidence of Collusion or Obstruction.

A liberal democratic republic is government by consent of the people. It’s basically a hiring/firing decision.
Click to expand...

...just a little over a year away but the dems don't want the people to make that decision.
 
#1,987
#1,987
What I've gathered after getting caught up on this thread:

-Trump's core supporters do not care what he does, and will defend him as such.

-The memo is not enough on it's own to warrant impeachment.

-As much as people harp on Pelosi on the board, she wouldn't bring up an impeachment inquiry unless she has more. People might disagree with her politically, but she isn't an idiot. She knows she has to walk a fine line between moderates and liberals. This makes me think she knows more than we do at the moment. She wouldn't take this much risk otherwise.

-The whistleblower confirmed they would like to testify, if their legal counsel is present. Per CNN a few moments ago.

-We don't really know much more than we knew yesterday. Without the whistleblower's testimony, all of this is moot.

-Muh Obama.

I think that hits all the high notes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick, RockyTop85 and MontyPython
#1,988
#1,988
volfanhill said:
I would argue it’s a very dangerous practice to view impeachment as a political decision. I understand that congress themselves gets to play judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to determining what is, or is not, “a high crime or misdemeanor.” I would hope that in all cases rule of law would be what congress uses as their guideline.
Click to expand...

True but its not the same as a criminal trial. Example is the quantum of proof that would satisfy the jury here. If you look at the timeline, there is a clear sequence of events that ties the hold up of aid to the pressure to investigate Biden. Circumstantial, but likely enough for conviction and removal from office.

Again, though, what is the test? In a criminal trial it has to be a unanimous verdict. To convict on impeachment it takes 67 of 100. But effectively, as I have said before, if it is significantly more than 50, like 54, 55, 56, I don't think Trump can survive, as hobbled as he would be.
 
#1,989
#1,989
lawgator1 said:
True but its not the same as a criminal trial. Example is the quantum of proof that would satisfy the jury here. If you look at the timeline, there is a clear sequence of events that ties the hold up of aid to the pressure to investigate Biden. Circumstantial, but likely enough for conviction and removal from office.

Again, though, what is the test? In a criminal trial it has to be a unanimous verdict. To convict on impeachment it takes 67 of 100. But effectively, as I have said before, if it is significantly more than 50, like 54, 55, 56, I don't think Trump can survive, as hobbled as he would be.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And you stated that better then I did. I just hope we should all be hesitant to ever view impeachment as a political tool to change election results.
 
#1,991
#1,991
volfanhill said:
Agreed. And you stated that better then I did. I just hope we should all be hesitant to ever view impeachment as a political tool to change election results.
Click to expand...


Sure, but the people on the other end will always claim it was motivated by partisan politics. My view is that of course politics is how we got here. But that doesn't give Trump a pass, any more than it gave one to Clinton.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#1,994
#1,994
lawgator1 said:
Sure, but the people on the other end will always claim it was motivated by partisan politics. My view is that of course politics is how we got here. But that doesn't give Trump a pass, any more than it gave one to Clinton.
Click to expand...

That’s two posts in a row I have agreed with you. I need you to post something stupid next so I can get over this urge to take a shower. 😀
 
#1,996
#1,996
volfanhill said:
I would argue it’s a very dangerous practice to view impeachment as a political decision. I understand that congress themselves gets to play judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to determining what is, or is not, “a high crime or misdemeanor.” I would hope that in all cases rule of law would be what congress uses as their guideline.
Click to expand...
Disagree.

Had the framers intended to make this a legal question that could be carried out by a bureaucrat, they were certainly capable of articulating specific criminal elements, and they certainly had the choice of allocating that decision to the judiciary.

The allocation of the decision to a body of elected representatives and the ambiguity of the language describing the criteria for removal both imply that the framers wanted the choice to be informed more by local customs of the time rather than a set of fixed criteria that could be carried out by a bureaucratic functionary.

The populace determines whether their president’s conduct is acceptable, and the senate is supposed to carry out their wishes, by proxy.

I think you can debate the merits of the system, but I’m convinced this was their intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick and volfanhill
#1,997
#1,997
zeppelin128 said:
What I've gathered after getting caught up on this thread:

-Trump's core supporters do not care what he does, and will defend him as such.

-The memo is not enough on it's own to warrant impeachment.

-As much as people harp on Pelosi on the board, she wouldn't bring up an impeachment inquiry unless she has more. People might disagree with her politically, but she isn't an idiot. She knows she has to walk a fine line between moderates and liberals. This makes me think she knows more than we do at the moment. She wouldn't take this much risk otherwise.

-The whistleblower confirmed they would like to testify, if their legal counsel is present. Per CNN a few moments ago.

-We don't really know much more than we knew yesterday. Without the whistleblower's testimony, all of this is moot.

-Muh Obama.

I think that hits all the high notes.
Click to expand...
She is an idiot who’s mind is gone. She has let the AOC and Warren wing of the party take control
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top