Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[Patooka]

Oh, please. This might all have seemed credible if Dems hadn’t been braying for impeachment since before Trump’s inauguration. There’s was already the intent to impeach, just searching for the pretext. This was the sole purpose of the Russia collusion hoax and the Muller investigation. That failed. So, with the 2020 election around the corner, the Dems deployed plan D. The thing about a partisan impeachment is that it’s partisan.

The Republicans were guilty of RussiaGate. Roger Stone. Members of the crime family, including Twitler, invited Russia to interfere in our election. Republicans who still favor Trump are traitors to democracy.

Yeah, for a hoax, a lot of people chose to plead guilty. And the investigation was one of the few instances where the government turned a profit.

 

[Half-Life]

Boo hoo hoo. One party played politics after the other party played politics.

So, stating an intent to work with the defendant, then swearing an oath of impartiality, then ignoring the oath, that's "politics" niw?

How was it not impartial?

You're basically saying, "If they don't agree to remove Trump, then they are not impartial!" Sounds very authoritarian-like.

Hitler: "If they don't agree that killing Jews is right, they are not impartial!"

Why can't it just be that cooler heads prevailed in the Senate? The Dems were exploding with fantasy after fantasy and lie after lie that the Senate just calmly shut them down, sort of like a parent calmly prevailing over their screaming child.

They were talking about impeachment since Trump got elected. It wouldn't surprise me if they are talking about starting another impeachment case and swearing to the public, "We're really gonna get him this time!"

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Boo hoo hoo. One party played politics after the other party played politics.

So, stating an intent to work with the defendant, then swearing an oath of impartiality, then ignoring the oath, that's "politics" niw?

How was it not impartial?

You're basically saying, "If they don't agree to remove Trump, then they are not impartial!" Sounds very authoritarian-like.

Hitler: "If they don't agree that killing Jews is right, they are not impartial!"

Why can't it just be that cooler heads prevailed in the Senate? The Dems were exploding with fantasy after fantasy and lie after lie that the Senate just calmly shut them down, sort of like a parent calmly prevailing over their screaming child.

They were talking about impeachment since Trump got elected. It wouldn't surprise me if they are talking about starting another impeachment case and swearing to the public, "We're really gonna get him this time!"

There JOB was to have a trial. They refused to do their job out of fear of Trump. Having an impartial trial means listening to witnesses and evidence, then forming a conclusion. Instead, they refused to listen to a conservative witness. Meanwhile, Twitler has undermined democratic elections. He's a traitor.

 

[Half-Life]

Yup. I can only shake my head - if the consequences of Republican Senators cramming this shitburger down the throats of a citizenry that is overwhelmingly (75%) opposed to it are not as bad the consequences of airing the truth, it's hard to imagine how bad the truth really is for them.

Actually, it's scary. They will be desperate to win and emboldened to cheat in the coming elections. Because if they lose, it could make the number of people sent to jail in the Nixon case pale by comparison. I think it goes beyond simply trying to keep their jobs.

There is about a 100% chance that more shit will be coming out between now and election day (for instance WH counsel is probably a fact witness), but there must be things that Republicans are betting they can keep secret, at least until then.

No one is seeing any jail. There will be no cheating. If Bernie does win the Dem nomination, it's over for him. Trump is gonna go on stage and say, "Commie Sanders wants to turn America into Russia. He went there on vacation and loved it. Who's the real Russian collusion guy?" Bernie's gonna get destroyed by Trump.

Do you not remember Trump trying to get a Trump Tower built in Moscow? That he conducted the Miss Universe Pageant there? Trump's been to Russia a helluva a lot more than Bernie. If Trump was smart, he wouldn't go near the subject of Russia.

Having properties there does not indicate he wants to mimic their government system. Bernie openly went to Russia because he admires their government. He didn't go there for the scenery. The Constitution would be torn to shreds under Bernie.

 

[Half-Life]

How was it not impartial?

You're basically saying, "If they don't agree to remove Trump, then they are not impartial!" Sounds very authoritarian-like.

Hitler: "If they don't agree that killing Jews is right, they are not impartial!"

Why can't it just be that cooler heads prevailed in the Senate? The Dems were exploding with fantasy after fantasy and lie after lie that the Senate just calmly shut them down, sort of like a parent calmly prevailing over their screaming child.

They were talking about impeachment since Trump got elected. It wouldn't surprise me if they are talking about starting another impeachment case and swearing to the public, "We're really gonna get him this time!"

There JOB was to have a trial. They refused to do their job out of fear of Trump. Having an impartial trial means listening to witnesses and evidence, then forming a conclusion. Instead, they refused to listen to a conservative witness. Meanwhile, Twitler has undermined democratic elections. He's a traitor.

The vote was 51-49 against the witnesses. It wasn't like it was a landslide in favor of trump. The vote was very impartial. Dictators don't go through the Senate with votes. Calm down.

As has been stated, Dems had their chance to prepare a case. They rushed it. They claimed they had enough evidence to impeach. That's why they impeached in the house: because they said "here's all the evidence we need. We're ready for trial."

You guys really just need to accept this loss and move on. It is getting very sad in our eyes.

Republicans wanted the whistleblower to testify. Dems said no. What more is there to say?

 

[Trausti]

There JOB was to have a trial.

Heh. Just as the House can impeach for whatever it wants, the Senate can have a trial as whatever it wants. Note that in real court case, criminal and civil, on motion the court can dismiss a case for lack of evidence or failure of the complaining party to bring a legally cognizable claim. The articles of impeachment do not contain high crimes and misdemeanors. No need for a trial.

 

[Trausti]

So much for step one.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There JOB was to have a trial.

Heh. Just as the House can impeach for whatever it wants, the Senate can have a trial as whatever it wants. Note that in real court case, criminal and civil, on motion the court can dismiss a case for lack of evidence or failure of the complaining party to bring a legally cognizable claim. The articles of impeachment do not contain high crimes and misdemeanors. No need for a trial.

Abuse of power is a high crime or misdemeanor, contrary to Traitorpublican propaganda. Your point was debunked days ago in this thread.

 

[lpetrich]

Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) / Twitter - lots of tweets of him in action. So far, he has been the most talkative at the trial.

Jake Tapper on Twitter: "Motion to allow subpoenas for new witnesses and/or documents fails, 49 YEA, 51 NAY.
Party line vote except GOP Senators Romney and Collins joined with the 47 Democratic Senators" / Twitter
Two Republicans showed some decency.

Sophia A. Nelson on Twitter: "Statement from [MENTION=189]marc[/MENTION]orubio on impeachment: "Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office." #MarcoRubio #SenateCoverup #SenateGOPCoverup #SenateTrial" / Twitter
then
Joy Reid on Twitter: "What does that even mean??? https://t.co/Oud4kj61zB" / Twitter

Joy Reid on Twitter: "Senators wanting written records explaining their votes put in the record sounds like folks are less than proud of what they're doing and are anticipating what voters & history will say. Just a thought. Meanwhile currently trending (for some reason): #ImpeachmentTrialSham" / Twitter

Joy Reid on Twitter: "Wow. Historian John Meacham told Brian Williams, when asked to assess the level of Trump's power after Senate Republicans took step 1 in voting that only the electorate can remove him but he can use his power to rig the election, that Trump is now "functionally a monarch."" / Twitter

In effect, Caesarism. A republic becoming a monarchy because of politicians' lack of will. But while Julius Caesar was a good leader, Trump isn't.

 

[lpetrich]

Bernie Sanders on Twitter: "A fair impeachment trial means hearing testimony from witnesses.
This is not a radical idea.
So what are Republicans afraid of?" / Twitter

Bernie Sanders on Twitter: "By a vote of 51 to 49, the Senate refused to subpoena witnesses in this impeachment trial.
I've never heard of a trial where you don't have witnesses.
This is a sad day in American history." / Twitter

Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "No witnesses = Sham trial and cover up.
Republican Senators just drove a stake in the heart of our democracy.
They will bear responsibility for everything that happens now." / Twitter

What a disgrace of a decision.

 

[Patooka]

Bernie Sanders on Twitter: "A fair impeachment trial means hearing testimony from witnesses.
This is not a radical idea.
So what are Republicans afraid of?" / Twitter

Bernie Sanders on Twitter: "By a vote of 51 to 49, the Senate refused to subpoena witnesses in this impeachment trial.
I've never heard of a trial where you don't have witnesses.
This is a sad day in American history." / Twitter

Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "No witnesses = Sham trial and cover up.
Republican Senators just drove a stake in the heart of our democracy.
They will bear responsibility for everything that happens now." / Twitter

What a disgrace of a decision.

Only if people are called to account.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[James Brown]

They were talking about impeachment since Trump got elected.

Is it your position that if "they" talk about impeachment from the beginning of a Presidential election, then that President can serve his/her term without ever being impeached, no matter what?

It wouldn't surprise me if they are talking about starting another impeachment case and swearing to the public, "We're really gonna get him this time!"

What should be done if he commits an impeachable act?

 

[JohnG]

So it turns out the argument for not having witnesses is they know he did it, so why bother with witnesses. They are simply ok with it.

In fact, one of Dersh’s arguments is that if DT believes he is the best leader for the country, he has a right to tamper with elections.

 

[southernhybrid]

So it turns out the argument for not having witnesses is they know he did it, so why bother with witnesses. They are simply ok with it.

In fact, one of Dersh’s arguments is that if DT believes he is the best leader for the country, he has a right to tamper with elections.

Yup! That's about it. Sure, he did it, but who cares!

 

[ZiprHead]

51 GOP senators who represent 19 million fewer people than 49 senators supporting a fair trial are blocking impeachment of a president who committed crimes worse than Watergate, lost the popular vote by 2.9 million votes & suffered the largest mid-term election defeat in US history.

..

 

[Keith&Co.]

Boo hoo hoo. One party played politics after the other party played politics.

So, stating an intent to work with the defendant, then swearing an oath of impartiality, then ignoring the oath, that's "politics" niw?

How was it not impartial?

You're basically saying, "If they don't agree to remove Trump, then they are not impartial!" Sounds very authoritarian-like.

that's from your word-of-the-day, authoritarian?
Sure as fuck you don't understand 'impartial.'

Why can't it just be that cooler heads prevailed in the Senate?

they ststed their conclusion before the trial. They coordinated with the White House.
That's complicity, plain and simple.

The Dems were exploding with fantasy after fantasy and lie after lie that the Senate just calmly shut them down, sort of like a parent calmly prevailing over their screaming child.

no, not realky.
They went from OT NEVER HAPPENED to, okay, it happened, but we won't punish him for it.
They have known his guilt all along, but refuse to care.

They were talking about impeachment since Trump got elected.

yeah, COMPLETELY unlike 12 years ago, people planning the impeachment of the Muslim before even the election. You guys sure have the moral high ground, hrre.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Elixir]

AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND MANUFACTURE SOME!

 

[lpetrich]

The Trump Impeachment Defense Would Replace a President With a King - Rolling Stone

We should have seen this coming, as Trump hardly ever misses an opportunity to reach for more power, not even amidst a process ostensibly about stripping it from him. Ironically and most unfortunately for the Democrats who sought even a modicum of accountability for President Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors, the impeachment process is being perverted into a process to make Trump into a dictator.

Trump’s defense against impeachment has, to this point, been somewhat bifurcated. At once, Trump was supposedly utterly innocent of the charges being brought against him — it was a perfect call with the Ukrainian president, we keep being told; just look at the White House’s doctored transcript — and it was also perfectly fine if Trump did everything he was charged with, because he is allowed to do whatever he likes. It was hard to discern which argument was more disturbing or less befitting of a president.

Alan Dershowitz has offered this argument:

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz offered.

Sort of like this from Richard Nixon when he was interviewed by David Frost. "Frost asked Nixon about the legality of the president's actions. In the context of American national security, Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."


Jamil Smith on Twitter: "They did this for a reason. Not necessarily to give Trump ultimate power, though Republicans are okay with that. It’s about the fact that he was caught manipulating an election, something that they too would like to continue doing without interruption. https://t.co/2bRL2tBE0L" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "The Senate’s abdication of responsibility to the rule of law represents a much deeper threat to our democracy, our institutions, and our republic.
The GOP knows that its agenda is incompatible with democracy, so their larger project is to dismantle it. https://t.co/RxH4aiJsbx" / Twitter


Sarah Kendzior on Twitter: ""The GOP wants a one-party state, and Trump wants to be the autocrat of that state. The idea that they are incompetent is a myth. They are very competent. They are just not interested in the process of governing. They are interested in ruling." #AMJoy https://t.co/expbKG6ijT" / Twitter