Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Feb 19 22:56:56 PST 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / official BS by delusional fraud POTUS#24
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jan 26 02:09:00
"So the process is legitimate but the president can still claim executive privilege meaning the courts would have to make an individual ruling. "

i'm so glad you keep mentioning executive privilege...

i shall just assume you agree they are obstructing as you agree they are legitimate subpoenas yet they are ignoring all of them and NOT because claiming executive privilege
kargen
Member
Sun Jan 26 03:00:02
nope you are still delusional. The impeachment investigation is legitimate and they can subpoena people. That doesn't mean a president can't claim executive privilege.

Nice try though.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 26 03:42:18
Kargen
He has not claimed executive privilege. The no shows are pure obstruction.
kargen
Member
Sun Jan 26 05:00:48
Doesn't matter what President Trump has claimed. What matters is the House didn't pursue the legal channels. Why they didn't is the big question. The courts could have compelled people to testify. The House didn't even try.
Habebe
Member
Sun Jan 26 06:34:16
" Sat Jan 25 20:17:01
so let's pretend they would've honored subpoenas if that vote had happened first?

give me a break"

The point is even in the Democratic help house she lacked the votes and thus legitimacy, this is not an act of the house
It's an act of Nancy Pelosi alone.


Habebe
Member
Sun Jan 26 06:34:17
" Sat Jan 25 20:17:01
so let's pretend they would've honored subpoenas if that vote had happened first?

give me a break"

The point is even in the Democratic help house she lacked the votes and thus legitimacy, this is not an act of the house
It's an act of Nancy Pelosi alone.


tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jan 26 11:55:49
i'll say it one more time for some reason

executive privilege is NOT being applied here

dictator Trump ordered everyone to ignore subpoenas of themselves & documents... not on executive privilege grounds (as that's not how that works)... he is claiming total immunity

executive privilege was NOT their defense... EVER

we got some witnesses as people felt it was their duty to testify or respected their subpoenas over dictator Trump's orders (like Sondland... he didn't want to testify, but he's an independent businessman who just happens to support Trump & i guess didn't want to be seen as flouting the law or something & testified once subpoenaed)

Trump has -threatened- executive privilege on Bolton as he falls in that camp of being willing to honor a subpoena over dictator Trump's proclamation (but only now that it's out of the House... as he's a coward & a dick)

but as of yet, there have been NO claims of executive privilege in the past or present... including all the assholes in the Mueller hearings who refused to answer questions because 'meh, maybe Trump might want to exert it'... though he never did & they still never answered the questions & they got away with it as this administration is lawless & corrupt & Dems are too chicken to throw people in jail over contempt

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jan 26 11:58:46
...and for Bolton, -IF- Trump ever tried executive privilege (WHICH HE HAS NOT) it would have to be on a question by question basis
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jan 26 12:52:53
back to the thread's roots...

"
Sleepyeyes Chuck Todd of Meet the Corrupt Press, just had a “totally” softball interview with conman Adam Schiff, never even calling Shifty out on his fraudulent statement to Congress, where he made up ALL of the words of my conversation with the Ukrainian President! FAKE NEWS
"

childish insults ✓
lies ✓
weird use of quotation marks ✓
simple spelling errors ☒ (good job!)
hypocrisy ✓ (on a lot... Trump does nothing but softball interviews, plus is a conman, & corrupt, & makes constant fraudulent statements, including being frequently made-up claims)


i'll guess Sleepyeyes didn't call out the conman on his fraudulent (& treasonous) statement as it never happened... go watch the video, see if it looks like Schiff is trying to represent his characterization as the real transcript (which EVERYONE had easily available as it had just been released the prior day & was big news... so he couldn't possibly be able to trick anyone as lying pile of shit Trump keeps claiming)
TJ
Member
Sun Jan 26 13:04:40
Patrick Philbin Opening Argument is the one explaining the subject of subpoenas. Just scroll down to the heading.

http://www...25-impeachment-trial-statement

The link below is the SSC case they based their legality on the subject. Too bad we can't put more that one hot link in a post.

http://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1546&context=hastings_law_journal
TJ
Member
Sun Jan 26 13:11:27
Since I screwed up the SSC-SC(Supreme Court) I'll make the second link hot.

http://rep...6&context=hastings_law_journal
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jan 26 13:34:59
i appreciate the option to review that court case, but i doubt i'd even understand it :p (i searched on 'subpoena' and only see it listed twice, & neither part saying you can't do it w/o a full house vote... if you want to direct me to a page to review i would... but even if it does say that somewhere, things could've changed as kargen noted)

in any case, the House DID vote to authorize the impeachment & i don't recall anyone saying 'oh, ok, now we'll cooperate'

--------

but if that's the argument they're going w/ and the Dems can't refute it, then fine... go for it

if American people want to believe they would've cooperated if not for that technicality & weren't purposely obstructing & they really do want the facts out (even though they aren't doing it, & nothing is stopping them)... then fine
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jan 26 13:42:18
"obstruction"

Congress is not a law enforcement entity, so the designation is meaningless.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jan 26 16:37:16
they have subpoena power, plus oversight & impeachment power, so seems like definite possibilities to obstruct it

=================

i missed this one...

"Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!"


so another open threat by the President... just like w/ FBI, no corrupt motives or actions established but the vengeful tyrant will again make sure to get whatever retaliatory investigations initiated as he can, and keep them coming til someone's corrupt enough to charge people (+ he will lie about the results of all the investigations that find nothing as done w/ FBI)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jan 26 16:38:55
and

"
The Impeachment Hoax is a massive election interference the likes of which has never been seen before. In just two hours the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats have seen their phony case absolutely shredded. Shifty is now exposed for illegally making up my phone call, & more!
"

i guess Schiff has been taken into custody by now...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Jan 26 18:23:41
seems Bolton has direct knowledge of Trump tying aid to the the investigations:

"
...
In his August 2019 discussion with Mr. Bolton, the president appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.
...
"
http://www...trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html

it was already nonsensical not to call him as a witness given he'd agreed to testify & definitely had knowledge... now it's completely indefensible not to call him
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jan 27 00:22:34
team Trump going w/ 'Bolton lying to sell books & because mad at being fired'... not too surprising

w/ the 'journalists' on his team happily accepting that conclusion ... based on nothing...

would the conservative hero, now shunned liar for speaking ill of the king, also perjure himself? i'm sure Trumpers will say 'of course!... anyone testifying against Trump must be willing to commit crimes & be lying as he's a beacon of moral goodness!'


seriously though... upon what evidence do people believe Trump didn't do this... there's been no evidence he didn't (excluding the excuses that start popping up in September... which is after whistleblower... and the speculation of reasons he might've done it or noting things he occasionally mentioned to random people)

are you hanging your hat on 'they didn't sufficiently prove that he did'? (granted, important in a criminal trial... but this is just about keeping/losing a job)

don't you require him being innocent? rather than failed to be completely proven guilty? especially since he's (& McConnell) are the ones hiding all the people/docs that would prove he's guilty... (or his supposed innocence)

even if you don't care about the conduct or think it's not bad enough to impeach... the lying & cover-up doesn't concern you massively? (as well as the heap of other constant lies, on issues both both huge & tiny... the lying about the tiny stuff is clear mental illness...)

[yes, i'm acknowledging it requires applying some simple common sense at the moment to realize he's guilty on the aid part (only the WH meeting quid pro quo is 100% proven)... yet common sense is allowable even in criminal trials]
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jan 27 15:48:45
at the moment, Pam Bondi (ex Florida AG who was in Trump's pocket) is going into how the Burisma/Biden investigation was so obviously needed

as if Trump knew -anything- she's talking about beyond the video of Joe that he saw on Fox

I hope she covers why it only became of critical importance in 2019... & why our only involvement was Giuliani...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jan 27 16:14:48
darn... she didn't cover that part...
TJ
Member
Mon Jan 27 17:14:55
She didn't need to cover Giuliani involvement. That was done by another member of the defense team. Are you watching the trial or are you just repeating talking points from various media outlets?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jan 27 17:23:52
it seems we will end this trial with no one knowing w/ complete certainty why Trump held up the aid

correct me if i'm wrong, but i only heard his team note that people heard Trump talk about burden-sharing & corruption... no one who got either of those things as the actual reason for the hold. They just want to imply it was the reason... so if Bolton or other evidence comes out then they haven't lied. Plus they have no way to claim the actual given reason as their side preventing it from entering evidence (as he's guilty).

Trump is not going to selflessly protect this made-up right for future presidents if he could instead stick it to the 'scum' Dems & 'fake news' media with exonerating evidence. Trump wouldn't even selflessly let someone have the last piece of chicken.

This is a sad day for America and therefore the world.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jan 27 17:24:50
"Are you watching the trial or are you just repeating talking points from various media outlets"

was watching but didn't catch every word from every person

i'm sorry i missed the Giuliani part, i'm sure it was compelling
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jan 27 17:28:19
some other observations (just from me)

if burden-sharing was the reason

a) what changed that caused him to release the aid?
b) i don't think that's even a legal reason to hold up the aid, anyone disagree?

Trump has the same misinformation on foreign country contributions as he always has... so i'm highly skeptical on that nonsense point...

plus... have ONE person testify to it (or document)
TJ
Member
Mon Jan 27 17:47:10
I'm watching on C-SPAN2. I don't depend on the opinions of others to come to my own decisions. None of that stuff on C-SPAN. You shouldn't need to ask questions that have been covered or yet to be covered in the trial.

The viewership of the trial is pathetic.

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jan 27 18:08:45
i'm sorry i'm not meeting your standards, i'm sure i watched more than Trump... & that i (sadly) know more than Trump on almost every issue he talks about

================================

(from news) they said the Trump team didn't address the Bolton revelations

(from me- yes i can think for myself)... the WH team has reviewed the book, they definitely would've looked at what hes said, and by not denying it today that suggests it IS in fact in the book (not 'fake news')... it doesn't prove it's true, but it would show that the defense team KNEW there was a direct link witness... plus shows he should DEFINITELY be called as a witness

i've seen at least one of the R senators already going w/ the 'he's just trying to sell a book' talking point... that's not remotely proof he's lying nor an excuse not to call him. Would he also commit perjury? And if you think so, call one or more of the supposedly exonerating witnesses they are hiding for rebuttal.

(from news commentator) there's a possibility Trump waived privilege by commenting about the Bolton conversation (Trump decided to deny the conversation on twitter, as if his word has any meaning)
TJ
Member
Mon Jan 27 18:32:12
"i'm sorry i'm not meeting your standards,"

I understand that you are capable of meeting that standard, you've just chosen to not. It isn't a high standard to meet with modern day technology.

I fully understand that there is nothing that can change your Fort Knox vault. My sporadic posting in your threads does not involve that intent.
McKobb
Member
Mon Jan 27 18:48:56
The trial is useless. I have no confidence that it will shift opinions significantly. Also fuck Trump.
McKobb
Member
Mon Jan 27 18:49:36
And I'm no liberal ffs.
TJ
Member
Mon Jan 27 18:59:24
Your no confidence is obviously well founded.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jan 27 19:01:19
was that sarcasm or no...

having no confidence in Trump is extremely well-founded
TJ
Member
Mon Jan 27 19:21:44
TW:

Is that question about sarcasm directed toward me?

If so, no it wasn't. The trial result seemed to be predetermined since its beginning. Therefore useless because of the party line partisanship.

The remainder of McKobb's post was an individual and personal opinion.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jan 27 21:21:27
my mistake, I read it hastily as was leaving and misinterpreted

anyway, here appears to be the Giuliani defense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opUEUiOgz5Y

basically she claims he was really a bit player in all this mess by cherry-picking comments and ignoring a whole lot.. and says that he was merely in Ukraine in efforts to help Trump clear his name in Russia investigation issues

kinda ridiculous assertion given the texts we've seen and some of the comments from the people she ignored (and Bolton calling him a hand grenade). Why is Yermak consulting with Giuliani about if their announcement is sufficient? (and it's definite they knows it's a quid pro quo to get a meeting from other Yermak texts). But she tries to put that just on Rudy.

She also suggests Giuliani wasn't digging up dirt on the Bidens... that would be news to Giuliani, as he keeps mentioning it publicly.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jan 27 21:24:07
...also that means Trump was asking for an investigation of Biden from a corrupt country with NO involvement on our side (as Barr was never told, at least according to Barr)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jan 27 21:55:22
for the record, i don't blame that lawyer for cherry-picking and massaging facts... that's what they do

a shame no one in the process is actually seeking the truth

the lawyers are cherry-picking for their sides, and the 'judges' routing for their teams

remains retarded not to call Bolton... and he's not a 'democrat witness' such that the R's should get a Biden... just a witness

but that lawyer above suggested Dems don't want to hear from Giuliani... so toss him in as a 'republican witness'... they must want him if Dems don't, right? so Bolton & Giuliani in

but as i said before i think Joe should testify, just deal w/ it now as they will be making insinuations all campaign long anyway, plus Trumpers will be claiming it's unfair that only the actual fact witnesses are being called rather than completely irrelevant sideshow witnesses the R's want...

so let's get Giuliani, Bolton, Mulvaney, Duffey, Biden... get to the bottom of things

add Trump for comic relief

(good luck finding a relevant question for Biden)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Jan 27 22:22:23
one last thing for now :p

at 8:00 in video is where the lawyer uses an 'impression' Volker got to suggest Rudy was asking for the investigation announcements on his own volition, not because Trump wanted it (weird they are ok w/ impressions the witnesses got on this issue when not ok w/ all the other impressions they got... and also weird we have to rely on Volker's impression when Trump is her client & Rudy is her client's lawyer)

but most weird is that the investigations Trump asked Zelensky for are the exact same investigations Rudy was pressuring them to publicly announce

quite a coincidence
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 28 02:19:14
He has been quite disciplined recently it seems. A barrage of retweets. Some of it of himself, but not much new stuff last 24 hours.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Jan 28 03:44:07
"they have subpoena power, plus oversight & impeachment power, so seems like definite possibilities to obstruct it"

For a private citizen, maybe - if the DoJ takes up the case. Congress has failed numerous times to forward such complaints to the DoJ when individuals have ignored subpoenas.

The Executive is not a private citizen. He is the head of an adversarial branch, that is virtually designed to obstruct its rival branches.
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 28 03:50:01
Funny how the Constitution seems virtually designed to defeat obstruction.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Jan 28 04:20:42
Indeed. If you have a supermajority.
patom
Member
Tue Jan 28 04:36:53
They don't want Joe or Hunter for relative questions. They want them to testify and incriminate themselves in something else.

Conversely they don't want Bolton or Mulvaney to testify under oath because they will either claim the 5th or be caught committing purgery.
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 28 05:56:27
Forwyn
Impeachment seems deterrent enough in those cases where not obstructing might otherwise leave to resignation (conviction is unlikely to ever happen as a president can always pre-empt it by simply stepping down).
TJ
Member
Tue Jan 28 10:14:16
The Democratic House majority screwed the pooch by not following the coequal branch process. Applying the Constitutional process is not obstruction of Congress.

The truth is that they knew it was a Hail Mary Pass with little chance in hell of succeeding in removing Trump from office, especially so before the upcoming election. The only answer remaining is why and that seems obvious. We'll see if their bypass of procedural efforts will have worked in the upcoming 2020 election.

There is a reason why it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate for removal.

Swallow the fact that the USA is not a parliamentary democracy.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Jan 28 12:10:40
if your 'obvious' reason is 2020 election interference, that's not obvious at all... they did this super fast... R's even argued fastest impeachment in history. They could've easily dragged it out til election (just going to court would've done it)

people aren't going to vote against Trump because of this (just another unfit thing in his long line of unfit things)... his inevitable fuck-ups in Aug, Sept, Oct will be what are on minds (+ opinion has been pretty solidified from the start... some noticed he's an unfit fraud as it was extremely obvious... others don't pay attention or get misled by Fox News types or whatever other bizarre reason people can't notice how -completely- ignorant & dishonest he is)

what i don't get is why we just move on... he never apologizes, he never expresses genuine regret, he never changes, yet we move on... people should still be up in arms about Helsinki (he -clearly- was siding w/ Putin over our intel people (whom he cast doubt on for ~2 years)... & it was all presser long, not one word, and he -clearly- lied about it to the whole nation the next day... yet, that was fine, we moved on)

and when he told Stephanopolous 'yeah, i'd accept help against political opponents from foreign gov'ts' & everyone got upset (including Fox News), he goes out the next day after adults talk to him & he says something different (although he still didn't get it right), and people were like... 'well, close enough... he tried to say the right answer... i guess that's what he really thinks, & not what he said the first time which is definitely what he thinks'... so we moved on...

bizarre

(i'm using only those 2 totally fucked up things of his LONG list of them, as even Fox News was bothered by them)

in any case, point being, after this impeachment we will just move on... (not a single person knowing for sure what really happened, even though we easily could have if they weren't hiding it)... and no one remembering much about it by November

i'm sure Trump will continue to accuse Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, others of crimes & want revenge investigations & will probably run false ads about it (& Fox News will be fine w/ all that & support it even)... but they'll be preaching to the choir
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Jan 28 12:40:14
"
Really pathetic how @FoxNews is trying to be so politically correct by loading the airwaves with Democrats like Chris Van Hollen, the no name Senator from Maryland. He has been on forever playing up the Impeachment Hoax. Dems wouldn’t even give Fox their low ratings debates....

.....So, what the hell has happened to @FoxNews. Only I know! Chris Wallace and others should be on Fake News CNN or MSDNC. How’s Shep Smith doing? Watch, this will be the beginning of the end for Fox, just like the other two which are dying in the ratings. Social Media is great!
"
~ obviously corrupt dictator


Fox is "loading the airwaves w/ Dems"? - i doubt it

so "politically correct" now means putting on members from both parties...

"Only I know!" - i'm skeptical...

he wants to get rid of Chris Wallace... one of their few remaining news people (& who definitely seems like a conservative Republican)... he thinks it should only be those who openly praise him daily, anyone dispute that?

"Social Media is great!" - i'm sure this is about a whole heap of fucked up reasons... he can spread lies w/o being questioned, he can retweet what shills & bots say, the heaps of bots praising him & 'liking' his posts (& i mean actual bots, not insulting his idiot cult members), & probably many more mentally ill reasons


the gist of his post is all news media needs to go (if they dare to put on non Trump lovers)... just social media & Trump propaganda channels... wouldn't that be grand for a well-informed society...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Jan 28 13:12:30
Sekulow has argued you can't take the word of the NY Times about what is in Bolton's book (which is fair)

but Sekulow -knows- what's in Bolton's book as it was submitted to the White House for review & i'm -certain- they would've looked

so if Bolton's comments are indeed in the book (which Sekulow -knows- whether or not they are, & didn't deny they are, so kinda seems likely)... then he's a fucking asshole (& deliberately misleading the Senate)

& beyond typical lawyering misleading imo... like when Cippolone flat-out lied...

also a good way to find out would be to call Bolton, who already agreed to come, and definitely has relevant info, and definitely would be called in any fair trial...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 29 13:16:20
Dershowitz arguing it's in the public interest for a President to help themselves get re-elected so Trump doing this for himself isn't wrong...

jesus...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 29 16:28:08
here's most of it... can skip first half if you only have a minute
http://twitter.com/ABC/status/1222600255369359362

so Trump can hold up aid, meetings etc to help himself get elected... that would apply to states, governments, people, whatever...
kargen
Member
Wed Jan 29 18:05:13
"Dershowitz arguing it's in the public interest for a President to help themselves get re-elected so Trump doing this for himself isn't wrong..."

Yeah that was really bad. Others have been saying if the president does something that is in the public interest it is okay if it is also in his interest. That argument is a sound one and applies to the Ukraine situation. What Dershowitz said though it just goofy.
kargen
Member
Wed Jan 29 18:07:27
Okay I listened again. Dershowitz was trying to make the argument that it is okay for something to be in the presidents best interest if it is also in the best interest of the public. He just really fucked up the wording.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 29 18:23:33
i think you're being generous on Dershowitz

------

they've been arguing the Hunter Biden investigation in the public interest... i -still- haven't heard why it's suddenly important now though (if i missed it please tell me)

seems fucking obvious why it came up to me (& this -obviously- NOT how it should've been started if it was for public interest)

although i see a lot of fucking obvious things that others can't spot...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 29 18:48:56
they just took a specific question about this... nothing addressing my question (from team Trump)

the good side noted there was no concern 2017 & 2018 (+ many other points)... i would've gone further, w/ 2014, 2015 & 2016 that's when Joe actually could've abused power to help Hunter

where was the clamoring for investigations before Trump needed a defense for asking?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 29 21:33:06
Schiff is way better than everyone else there (including the others on the good patriotic interested-in-the-facts team)

Always solid answers.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 29 21:51:25
and to toss out again...

every witness Dems want has direct knowledge that is very obviously relevant to the case

every witness Reps want has no relevant knowledge at all... (two of them just to try to suggest there's a hoax, which is impossible to have occurred)...
** Reps seek admitting -no- evidence at all that would exonerate Trump **

-----

Dems are willing to have the Chief Justice rule on witness relevance (including having the evil team argue specifically why Hunter, etc is relevant, they should be able to if he & others are)

Reps are against that

------

Dems are willing to have the Chief Justice rule on privilege claims to prevent delays

Reps are against that

------

(Chief Justice appointed by Bush... obviously in Trump-land he has to be openly pro-Trump to be fair... but for sane people, i'd say it's more than fair as is)

=============================================

if Trump is innocent
--------------------
ALL Dem requested witnesses will be bad for them, & good for Trump
(ALL Rep requested witnesses remain meaningless & pointless)


so why are they sooo resistant? they have a path to get exonerating evidence & privilege issues quickly cleared... but nope, they don't want to... just leave it murky

i know why... but i'm special, i guess
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Jan 30 22:51:07
Lamar Alexander's statement on not wanting witnesses
(he was the hope for putting it over the edge)
http://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm

TLDR: 'they proved Trump withheld the aid to pressure Ukraine but meh, whatever... i disapprove, but not impeachable'

thus no punishment whatsoever, & no reason for him not to do it as much as he wants...

plus team Trump argued abuse of power in general not impeachable, so do as much of that in any other forms too

plus you never have to honor a subpoena, so don't worry about any oversight w/o a couple years of court battling

i'm sure we all trust Trump w/ his new powers... not sure why we need congress anymore, as they have also surrendered their power of the purse & power over wars too
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 30 23:08:07
Not convictable perhaps, but such is politics. But demonstratably impeachable. Trump was after all impeached.

The GOP also has 20 seats up for election in the Senate in 2022.

We will see how many times Trump is eventually impeached if he wins.

Even a mere two times would be a new record.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 31 07:38:42
Jergul -

Oh come on. Now you not only want to overturn the results of the 2016 election, but you want to do the same if Trump wins again in 2020?

What is it with supporters of the political establishment and their rabid desire to reverse every vote that doesnt go their way? Trump 2016, Trump 2020, Brexit 2016, IndyRef 2014...its the exact same thing every goddamn time. "Oh we cant have the people voting the WRONG way...their deluded little decisions must be reversed by us elitists for the sake of the global order that props us up." Its pathetic.

But by all means, impeach him a second time. Hell, make it a third, fourth, fifth, sixth. Inflation inevitably results in devaluation.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 31 07:44:23
Ruggy
What are you on about? Impeachment does not overturn elections, nor would even convictions and removal do that. Though the last would never happen. A president can always pre-empt conviction by resigning.

The people incidentally elected clinton by about the same margin they won brexit. If you absolutely want to go the voice of the people mantra.

If Trump goes full retard with the executive office, then he should be impeached.

That we all know that he is likely to go full retard does not make him unimpeachable.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 31 07:55:59
Jergul,

I really want to know how you got the impression that "overturning" has to be a retroactive affair.

In this case, a vote to remove would overturn the will of the United States and force the president, who was duly elected out of office, to be forced out and replaced by a caretaker.

Stop wallowing in technicalities to keep your arguments above water. It's a terrible strategy, especially for an ESL person like yourself.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 31 07:56:50
What incidentally is your position on the looming Novemeber threat that might reverse the result of the 2016 election?

Pfft.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 31 07:58:32
Noted how you shifted from will of the people to will of the United States.

Look at you learning things.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 31 09:11:06
Jergul,

This is just inane. If the United States, as determined by the wills of their respective peoples (meaning legal, lawabiding and alive citizens of not less than 18 years in age) decide to elect someone other than Trump, that is of course their right.

Does that cover things adequately, or is there anything else to nitpick here?
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 31 09:19:37
Ruggy
So the electorat college is fine and dandy as mandated by your constitution, but impeachment as mandated by your constitution is stealing the election?

Remembering if you will that the will of the people actually chose someone other than Trump in 2016.

The electoral college stole that result and elected trump instead.

To use your garbage wording on processes.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 31 09:24:05
What about that other constitutional thing that is not even sanctified by the founding fathers?

Will the Demorats abuse the constitution to steal a third term from Trump based on mere technicalities?
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 31 09:28:26
Jergul -

Gee, it's almost like we're a federation of states and not a unitary republic. How is this still news to people 244 years after the fact?

Anyways, if I have to explain the difference between elections (in which the Electoral College is mostly constrained by state results) and impeachment (a political process driven by DC swamp creatures), then this is going to be a very drawn-out debate.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 31 09:43:56
So your position then is that the Democrats want to use the constitution to steal the election from the electoral college?

Its obviously not stealing it from the people because even if impeachment somehow led to a democrat becoming president, it would only give the result to majority of people voted for anyway.

jergul
large member
Fri Jan 31 09:47:11
Its obvious btw that Trump should run for a third term. The coequal branch of government might eventually rule that it is unconstitutional some time into his 3rd term, but I am not sure how that decision would be enforced.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 31 09:48:39
Jergul

This country has a very long-established process for renewing and replacing presidents after a periodic amount of time. Elections are that process. Impeachment is not.

Still though, I'll concede that your view isn't exactly outside of the mainstream right now. Which is why I'm fully confident that the next Dem president with a GOP-controlled House is going to find himself as the fourth president to be impeached. Turnabout and all that.
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Jan 31 09:49:54
"So your position then is that the Democrats want to use the constitution to steal the election from the electoral college?"


the key question here, (and I only ask it because I know how Rugian likes to zero in on key questions), is what personal flaws moved the Founders to insert impeachment into the constitution, opening the door for subverting the will of the EC electors? Stupidity? Carelessness?
TJ
Member
Fri Jan 31 10:36:56
"Will the Democrats abuse the constitution to steal a third term from Trump based on mere technicalities?" <-Poppycock

Trump 2020!
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 31 10:48:09
TJ
I agree.

Trump 2024!
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 31 10:49:25
The point is mostly that if you cannot appreciate the constitutional rights granted congress, then why bother appreciating anything in the constitution you dislike?
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 31 10:54:35
Tfw you're explaining to a so-called adult man that rights can be abused.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 31 10:57:47
Ruggy
Now thats the thing. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the Democrats honestly feel there were grounds to impeach?

Using the office for personal gain is obviously something many people can feel is impeachable and grounds for removal from office.

Regardless of the politics.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 31 10:58:57
Anyway.

Lamar Alexander's statement was perfectly appropriate. Ukraine aid decision may not have been Trump's smartest move, but it was nowhere near impeachable.

There isn't a single president since the 1970s that would have survived in office if the same standards being applied to Trump were consistently applied throughout recent history. Our government would be more unstable than Ecuador's if that were the case. The House royally fucked up in their judgement here.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 31 11:01:54
Jergul,

It probably has something to do with the fact that they've been explicitly advocating to impeach him since Day 1. "We're going to impeach the motherfucker" and all that.

When a prosecutor says "I hate John Smith so much that I'm going to dig through every law we have on the books to try and charge him with anything that might stick," he has generally crossed the line into misconduct.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 31 11:03:06
It was demonstratably impeachable.

Trump was impeached for that, and for obstruction of Congress.
jergul
large member
Fri Jan 31 11:04:10
Democratic leadership backed impeachment with extreme reluctance and only after the matter was forced.
patom
Member
Fri Jan 31 11:10:12
The US Senate is in the process of setting up Trump as God/Emperor/King of what once was a pretty good experiment in Democracy.

Once they refuse to at least censure Trump he will use that as an excuse to do any thing he wants. Just like he did with his private businesses.
kargen
Member
Fri Jan 31 11:11:00
The Democrats do not want witnesses and they have known for quite a while now they don't want witnesses. THey have to put on a good show though for 2020. They need to be able to claim a cover-up and can only do that if witnesses are not called. That is why they retracted their submission of a witness to the courts during the House hearing. A court ruling either way would legitimize the process and that is the worst possible outcome for the Democrats. We know removal isn't possible and an acquittal with witnesses would completely undermine all the Democrats efforts to go into the 2020 elections with a talking point.
They are also worried about what witnesses the Republicans might call. No Hunter Biden isn't one that concerns them. His testifying won't hurt Joe Biden's campaign during the primary and in the general election it won't matter much if Joe gets that far. They are worried about Schiff's staff being called to testify because Schiff has perjured himself. Other Democrats behavior and actions leading up to the investigation would also become more an issue and that is really what the Democrats fear if witnesses are actually called.
The Democrats are claiming that it is unprecedented to not call witnesses in the Senate. It is also unprecedented for the President not to have representation during the House hearing and unprecedented for the minority party to not be able to call witnesses. Precedence flew out the window long long ago.

The best thing that can happen for the Democrats is if the trial ends today. That will give them their only issue to run on during the general election.
TJ
Member
Fri Jan 31 11:21:09
Congress isn't a single party. Who'd of thunk that something in this world was perfect.

I'll stick with 2020 since 2024 is too far into the future. Anything can happen is 9 years. All those checks and balances are a bitch, eh?

Trump's impeachment will be recorded into history exactly as it happened.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 31 12:08:10
"
The Democrats do not want witnesses and they have known for quite a while now they don't want witnesses.
...
They need to be able to claim a cover-up and can only do that if witnesses are not called.
...
A court ruling either way would legitimize the process and that is the worst possible outcome for the Democrats.
...
They are worried about Schiff's staff being called to testify because Schiff has perjured himself.
"

this is a heap of nonsense... if witnesses are so bad for Dems, R's can call the bluff... especially for Schiff (if R's could prove perjury they'd be dying to)... plus actually, ya know, exonerate the President to remove the cloud that will remain (if Trump could prove innocence he'd be dying to)...

& they are getting court rulings on McGahn so don't fear those either...

------
"
It is also unprecedented for the President not to have representation during the House hearing and unprecedented for the minority party to not be able to call witnesses.
"
-----
and this part is flat provably FALSE... not that you'd know it listening to team Trump/Fox

he & his lawyers were welcome to participate once it went to judiciary & could've offered up whatever defense they wanted & declined (& it's not like the House R's weren't acting as his surrogates in the Intel committee)

and the minority party -DID GET WITNESSES- from their list... EVERY SINGLE ONE that had relevant knowledge to Trump's actions


you say you don't watch a lot of Fox... but wherever you get your info, it is BAD

=======================

to overturn/caretaker argument... Pence was -on- the ticket they voted for... (and people should've expected he could become President especially since Trump was a clearly unfit moron during the campaign)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 31 12:15:15
...and to clarify, there were 2 or 3 on the R witness list that were called

the only denials were Schiff, wb, Bidens, & i think they had some Fusion GPS nonsense people

R's continue to request no one who directly heard from Trump, while continuing to criticize that no one who directly heard from Trump has implicated him
(...just ignore Mulvaney & Bolton who did it outside of trial)

fuck R's, team Trump, Fox News & wherever kargen gets his info...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 31 12:17:14

this senate chaplain acting like god is helping these shitheads make decisions is the most offensive part of the 'trial'...

kargen
Member
Fri Jan 31 14:49:12
Nah I am spot on. No way most Democrats really want witnesses. More witnesses can only hurt not help them. They claimed the slam dunk earlier and now are pretending outrage so they have a platform come July.
That is all this has been for a while now.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 31 17:06:23
so, R's will call their bluff, put on the witnesses, humiliate the Dems & the 'fake news' media w/ the exculpatory evidence, plus catch Schiff in perjury

if your theory is true, that would definitely happen

we'll see how it goes
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 31 17:12:29
"Democrats = 17 Witnesses. Republicans = 0 Witnesses."
~ tweet from the President

another total lie (& not first time he said it)
and same one kargen believed...

& Sekulow claimed it too, although he said 'we' got no witnesses, i think, so perhaps saving it from being a lie to just misleading if he meant the legal team rather than Republicans, who clearly were acting in Trump's defense from the start

but Trump doesn't care about accuracy, he'll just lie... every day... & it's ok...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 31 17:14:00
...actually Sekulow's possible meaning is still just a lie, i'm certain R's made their list in consultation w/ Trump's lawyers, why wouldn't they
patom
Member
Fri Jan 31 17:28:40
Well the vote is in and nobody is surprised that the R's are scared to put anyone under oath.

As soon as Collins said she would vote for witnesses, I knew they would be one vote short. She only votes against her party when it won't count.
kargen
Member
Fri Jan 31 17:34:26
Nope, no witnesses. Calling witnesses at this point would be like a team winning by a score of 35-7 with a minute left in the football game faking a kneel down and throwing long for another TD. It would be poor sportsmanship and just running up the score. We know the outcome and it is time for the game to end.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 31 17:42:46
"As soon as Collins said she would vote for witnesses, I knew they would be one vote short. She only votes against her party when it won't count. "

agreed, all orchestrated

--

@kargen, you are wrong again... this will leave ~half the country assuming he's guilty & feeling like he senate covered for him (because they did), Trump would -never- not run up the score if he could

& not sure what suggests to you that witnesses would be bad for Dems, everything that has come out has been bad for Trump... completed FOIA requests, Lev Parnas, Bolton... yet the White House can't even leak one doc that's good for Trump

plus note Lamar Alexander, an R who is retiring, said the case was proven

to idiots like him who say it's wrong but not impeachable, you should -require- Trump acknowledge it, or show some ounce of regret... there will be none, just like every other time (except his forced pussy grab apology)
patom
Member
Fri Jan 31 17:46:20
Never heard him apology for grabbing anyone by the pussy. He sort of wears that as a badge of honor or bravery.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 31 17:57:23
patom -

First you said you've never seen him smile, now you say he never apologized for the "grab em by the pussy" remarks.

Do you think you might be getting a colored view of the man?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycfARBsz6_Y
kargen
Member
Fri Jan 31 18:43:42
"Trump would -never- not run up the score if he could"

You are correct and he said he wants witnesses.

President Trump has acknowledged the phone call and his team has pointed out how his request falls within the norm.

Speaking of the phone call do you not find it a bit odd that they started the eventual move to impeach two years before what he is being impeached for actually happened? They can read minds almost as well as you can.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 31 18:55:22
"You are correct and he said he wants witnesses."

so the republicans and Trump's lawyers are defying his wishes? (& you believe words Trump says?)

i was kinda kidding when i said you were crazy before, not sure it's kidding anymore...


& various people have made comments about impeachment all along as he's been grossly unfit all along
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 31 19:02:50
And my fault for being unclear, Trump didn't apologize for grabbing pussies just for bragging about his practice of grabbing pussies
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 31 21:02:07
"The Library of Congress abandoned plans last year to showcase a mural-size photograph of demonstrators at the 2017 Women’s March in Washington because of concerns it would be perceived as critical of President Trump, according to emails obtained by The Washington Post."

(this is different than when National Archives did something similar recently with editing a photo)

we are all getting to witness firsthand how a tyrannical dictatorship forms, very educational
kargen
Member
Fri Jan 31 21:25:15
Knowing the world you have created so you can manage day to day it is comforting that you think me crazy.

You have Democrats claiming they withdrew requests to the courts because of time constraints yet it takes them two weeks to walk the documents down the hall. Makes perfect sense to you and that says everything about your state of mind.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 31 21:33:44
and you have Republicans saying the McGahn court process is moving fast... it's been 9 months... & many more til over

1+ years is a substantially difference from a couple weeks (& the delay only after R's making it clear they had no intention to have a fair trial)

also, Dems were 100% fine with Chief Justice Roberts ruling on all privilege issues right there in the Senate, how could the Dems be the ones afraid?

you are totally nuts
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 31 21:38:25
plus on McGahn, it doesn't address executive privilege, so once the Supreme Court case smacks down the obstructers of Justice, like the other courts, the criminals can start asserting exec privilege on every question & head back for another 1+ years of court


there's some hope Trump's lawyers will face ethics violations... that'll be at least a small victory

maybe associates of the head criminal will start noticing they all keep getting jailed & stop criminally helping the criminal...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Feb 01 13:31:16
Trump is a criminal
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share