Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[crazyfingers]

There are hundreds of things he should be impeached for.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Trausti]

So... let me get this straight. Trump assassinates a foreign top general without a declaration of war or consent of congress.... and he'll get away with that... but you want to impeach him over a phone call....

Ok then.

They'd impeach him for getting two scoops of ice cream if they could get the votes. They've set the bar so low impeachment has become meaningless.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So... let me get this straight. Trump assassinates a foreign top general without a declaration of war or consent of congress.... and he'll get away with that... but you want to impeach him over a phone call....

Ok then.

Iranian forces have repeatedly attacked US forces. Whether there is a formal declaration of war or not doesn't matter. It's a legitimate exercise of presidential power even if you disagree with it being the right thing to do. Being wrong isn't an impeachable offense.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So... let me get this straight. Trump assassinates a foreign top general without a declaration of war or consent of congress.... and he'll get away with that... but you want to impeach him over a phone call....

Ok then.

Iranian forces have repeatedly attacked US forces. Whether there is a formal declaration of war or not doesn't matter. It's a legitimate exercise of presidential power even if you disagree with it being the right thing to do. Being wrong isn't an impeachable offense.

Welllllll:

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that in the wake of the airstrike, the president “told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate.” Over the weekend, the New York Times reported something similar:

He told some associates that he wanted to preserve the support of Republican hawks in the Senate in the coming impeachment trial, naming Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas as an example, even though they had not spoken about Iran since before Christmas.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So... let me get this straight. Trump assassinates a foreign top general without a declaration of war or consent of congress.... and he'll get away with that... but you want to impeach him over a phone call....

Ok then.

They'd impeach him for getting two scoops of ice cream if they could get the votes. They've set the bar so low impeachment has become meaningless.

..

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So... let me get this straight. Trump assassinates a foreign top general without a declaration of war or consent of congress.... and he'll get away with that... but you want to impeach him over a phone call....

Ok then.

You shouldn't get all worked up about stuff you're not informed on. The phone call was the least of it. But you are accurately parroting the Rethuglican Party Line on it...

The Republican party line is that he should be impeached for assassinating a foreign general in an act of war without congress' approval? They've improved a lot since I last looked.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There are hundreds of things he should be impeached for.

And yet they aren't. He's done some pretty incredibly and obviously illegal things he could be impeached for, but the Democrats refuse(d) to. The Democrats only try to impeach him for this one particular thing. Why do you think that is?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Iranian forces have repeatedly attacked US forces. Whether there is a formal declaration of war or not doesn't matter. It's a legitimate exercise of presidential power even if you disagree with it being the right thing to do. Being wrong isn't an impeachable offense.

Last I checked, your congress is supposed to sign off on acts of war, such as assassinating a foreign head of state or top general. Trump didn't even bother to parade around claims of weapons of mass destruction a la George W. Bush. It is only because Iran showed such incredible restraint in their response that we don't have a whole new Iraq thing all over again. Trump did manage to lead us to a number of Canadians being killed when Iran shot down an airliner reasonably but mistakenly thinking it was an American invasion plane though. The whole "they attacked US forces" line is garbage. You've surrounded their country with their military and killed their top general? Can you even imagine the US reaction if a foreign state had military bases in Canada and Mexico and aircraft carriers and battleships off the coasts of New York and California?

 

[Patooka]

There are hundreds of things he should be impeached for.

And yet they aren't. He's done some pretty incredibly and obviously illegal things he could be impeached for, but the Democrats refuse(d) to. The Democrats only try to impeach him for this one particular thing. Why do you think that is?

If the Democrats had articles of impeachment for every act Trump is guilty of, there would literally be hundreds of articles. Idiots like Hannity, Shapiro, Rightwing Halfwits etc would all be exlaiming, "Look! witch hunt! Democrats are so desperate they'll impeach Trump for anything!". Unfortunately, around 60% of the US population would believe them, given their susceptible nature. With things as they are now, only around a third of the country believes that.

In a nation where a significant size of the population believes the last President was a secret gay Kenyan muslim atheist intent on bringing about sharia law, 9/11 was an inside job, Hillary Clinton headed a pedophile ring disguised as pizza stores after hiring an assassin named Benjamin Ghazi to kill four Americans in Libya and Democrats love Iran more than the US, you have to dole out facts in small portions. Otherwise the recipient will just throw them back up. Right wingers prefer fantasy over reality so it's a process for them to accept facts.

 

[Elixir]

So... let me get this straight. Trump assassinates a foreign top general without a declaration of war or consent of congress.... and he'll get away with that... but you want to impeach him over a phone call....

Ok then.

They'd impeach him for getting two scoops of ice cream if they could get the votes. They've set the bar so low impeachment has become meaningless.

So, just to be clear - you'll have no problem if a Dem president enlists foreign adversaries to funnel funds to their campaign and bribes a supposed ally to manufacture dirt on their opponent by withholding congressionally approved funds to ensure their help with re-election.
Treason is too low a bar.
Got it. Teh stoopid is running way deep on the right lately.

 

[Gun Nut]

So... let me get this straight. Trump assassinates a foreign top general without a declaration of war or consent of congress.... and he'll get away with that... but you want to impeach him over a phone call....

Ok then.

Do you really think that Trump flew the drone himself? nope. he made a phone call.. so, you agree then that he should be impeached over a phone call, but just a different one. whatever.

 

[Gun Nut]

Iranian forces have repeatedly attacked US forces. Whether there is a formal declaration of war or not doesn't matter. It's a legitimate exercise of presidential power even if you disagree with it being the right thing to do. Being wrong isn't an impeachable offense.

Last I checked, your congress is supposed to sign off on acts of war, such as assassinating a foreign head of state or top general. Trump didn't even bother to parade around claims of weapons of mass destruction a la George W. Bush. It is only because Iran showed such incredible restraint in their response that we don't have a whole new Iraq thing all over again. Trump did manage to lead us to a number of Canadians being killed when Iran shot down an airliner reasonably but mistakenly thinking it was an American invasion plane though. The whole "they attacked US forces" line is garbage. You've surrounded their country with their military and killed their top general? Can you even imagine the US reaction if a foreign state had military bases in Canada and Mexico and aircraft carriers and battleships off the coasts of New York and California?

Post 9/11 legislation gave the office of the President the power to do these types of things without consulting Congress first. an accounting of decisions and actions are still required.. but not for approval, but for justification.
So, your information is almost 20 years out of date.

 

[ZiprHead]

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. You've been a bad boy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So... let me get this straight. Trump assassinates a foreign top general without a declaration of war or consent of congress.... and he'll get away with that... but you want to impeach him over a phone call....

Ok then.

They'd impeach him for getting two scoops of ice cream if they could get the votes. They've set the bar so low impeachment has become meaningless.

True, but until that can be shown to have happened, we'll need to stick with Obstructing Congress and Abuse of Power by using Congressionally appropriated funds to shake down the Ukrainian President to provide support for our domestic election.

... but the ice cream thing is promising.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So... let me get this straight. Trump assassinates a foreign top general without a declaration of war or consent of congress.... and he'll get away with that... but you want to impeach him over a phone call....

Ok then.

They'd impeach him for getting two scoops of ice cream if they could get the votes. They've set the bar so low impeachment has become meaningless.

So, just to be clear - you'll have no problem if a Dem president enlists foreign adversaries to funnel funds to their campaign and bribes a supposed ally to manufacture dirt on their opponent by withholding congressionally approved funds to ensure their help with re-election.
Treason is too low a bar.
Got it. Teh stoopid is running way deep on the right lately.

See, that's the problem. All Repugs know that no Dem would do anything like that. That's why they don't give a fuck. They're all kicking themselves--as their wives get fucked by other men and they're "forced" to watch--that they didn't have the alpha balls to do it themselves.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There are hundreds of things he should be impeached for.

And yet they aren't. He's done some pretty incredibly and obviously illegal things he could be impeached for, but the Democrats refuse(d) to. The Democrats only try to impeach him for this one particular thing. Why do you think that is?

If the Democrats had articles of impeachment for every act Trump is guilty of, there would literally be hundreds of articles. Idiots like Hannity, Shapiro, Rightwing Halfwits etc would all be exlaiming, "Look! witch hunt! Democrats are so desperate they'll impeach Trump for anything!". Unfortunately, around 60% of the US population would believe them, given their susceptible nature. With things as they are now, only around a third of the country believes that.

In a nation where a significant size of the population believes the last President was a secret gay Kenyan muslim atheist intent on bringing about sharia law, 9/11 was an inside job, Hillary Clinton headed a pedophile ring disguised as pizza stores after hiring an assassin named Benjamin Ghazi to kill four Americans in Libya and Democrats love Iran more than the US, you have to dole out facts in small portions. Otherwise the recipient will just throw them back up. Right wingers prefer fantasy over reality so it's a process for them to accept facts.

It's SO incredibly depressing to realize all of that is absolutely true. TENS OF MILLIONS believe all that shit.

Bill Hicks was right. We're a virus with shoes.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I find it very curious that they refuse to impeach on so many over the top crazy things, including keeping children in cages and assassinating a foreign general without a declaration of war (possibly a war crime), but do impeach only once he's seeking dining info against a fellow insider to their party. Very curious indeed.

 

[angelo]

The Trump has done exactly what Obuma did when he ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden. The difference been that this " foreign general" is responsible for perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths.

 

[lpetrich]

This secrecy is excessive.

Sarah D. Wire on Twitter: "Reporters will be kept in pens, meaning only senators seeking out press coverage will get covered." / Twitter
with
Sarah D. Wire on Twitter: "The Standing Committee of Correspondents vigorously objects to restrictions being considered on press access during the upcoming Senate trial of President Trump." / Twitter

then
Manu Raju on Twitter: "The restrictions being placed on reporting in the Capitol during the impeachment trial are totally unacceptable. Reporters need access to senators so the public knows their views about the evidence. These steps need to be reversed to allow press access of this historic event https://t.co/8RmiWW0SGd" / Twitter

Impeachment trial security crackdown will limit Capitol press access - "Press pens and ‘no walking and talking’ draw criticism from press corps advocates"
then
Mike DeBonis on Twitter: "NO STILL PHOTOGRAPHERS allowed to document the transfer of the articles to the Senate?!?!?
I stand with the Standing Committee of Correspondents & scores of colleagues who cover the Capitol daily in condemning this outrageous breach of press freedom. https://t.co/lF4B0fJKUg" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "There is no good reason that credentialed press should be blocked from thoroughly covering the impeachment trial & documenting it for the public. We must honor the freedom of the press.
To not allow photography of the transfer - along w/ many other limitations - is unacceptable. https://t.co/VuWq1b7PDb" / Twitter