Trump Is Impeached.

[Jolly_Penguin]

It isn't just political theater. Whether or not Trump is convicted in the Senate--which remains to be seen--it was,in my opinion, and the opinions of millions of others, that it was imperative to bring forward articles of impeachment. Trump's blatant violation of his oath of office and of the constitution cannot and should not stand. Even if the Senate does not do the right thing and convict Trump, it is important that those who have power to do the right thing actually do the right thing instead of handwaving cowardice.

I do believe, like most here, that Trump abused power. However, Democrats made a mistake by seeking to impeach Trump literally ever since he took office.
The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun
And who can forget "impeach the motherfucker" rant by Rashida Tlaib?

So now it looks like a partisan witch hunt no matter the facts.

Seeing as how the dems were itching for something to impeach him for, don't you think it was monumentally stupid of trump to do something so egregious he can be impeached for it?

I don't think anyone, not even the Republicans, are arguing that Trump is smart.

 

[Gun Nut]

It isn't just political theater. Whether or not Trump is convicted in the Senate--which remains to be seen--it was,in my opinion, and the opinions of millions of others, that it was imperative to bring forward articles of impeachment. Trump's blatant violation of his oath of office and of the constitution cannot and should not stand. Even if the Senate does not do the right thing and convict Trump, it is important that those who have power to do the right thing actually do the right thing instead of handwaving cowardice.

I do believe, like most here, that Trump abused power. However, Democrats made a mistake by seeking to impeach Trump literally ever since he took office.
The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun
And who can forget "impeach the motherfucker" rant by Rashida Tlaib?

So now it looks like a partisan witch hunt no matter the facts.

The mistake, in my opinion, was not including everything they ever said they wanted to impeach over... they should have included "acting the fool" from his first few months in office... they should have included him making fun of a mentally challenged person... they should have included "good people on the nazi side"... they should have included everything in the Mueller report that was handed to them on a silver platter.... Then they could say, "yes, here is everything he should be impeached for, right from the beginning like we have been saying all along".
But, as usual... Dems fail.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It isn't just political theater. Whether or not Trump is convicted in the Senate--which remains to be seen--it was,in my opinion, and the opinions of millions of others, that it was imperative to bring forward articles of impeachment. Trump's blatant violation of his oath of office and of the constitution cannot and should not stand. Even if the Senate does not do the right thing and convict Trump, it is important that those who have power to do the right thing actually do the right thing instead of handwaving cowardice.

I do believe, like most here, that Trump abused power. However, Democrats made a mistake by seeking to impeach Trump literally ever since he took office.
The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun
And who can forget "impeach the motherfucker" rant by Rashida Tlaib?

So now it looks like a partisan witch hunt no matter the facts.

That makes absolutely no sense. Trump clearly committed the crimes that he was impeached for. The fact that there were people who wanted him out of office all along doesn't somehow make holding him accountable for his crimes some sort of witch hunt.

Your point is like a mob boss arguing "Hey, the FBI has been wanting to put me into prison for years, and now all of a sudden they've charged me with murdering one of my rivals for no more reason than that they have a video tape of me shooting him in the face? How is this a fair justice system?"

 

[repoman]

So Pelosi wants to delay, but could McConnell just start the trial anyway? He is a rule bender for sure.

He looks like a turtle but fights like Gamera.

 

[lpetrich]

I haven't found any reaction from Rashida Tlaib, not even "We have impeached the motherfucker!"

 

[repoman]

I haven't found any reaction from Rashida Tlaib, not even "We have impeached the motherfucker!"

It is her walking down the hall just before the impeachment vote.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jfnyc1/status/1207509426900471808

 

[lpetrich]

Titled link: Joel Fischer on Twitter: "This what the Dems meant that they're 'not happy and they are broken' that they had to impeach the president. https://t.co/99nhYuMHoz" / Twitter

 

[JohnG]

It isn't just political theater. Whether or not Trump is convicted in the Senate--which remains to be seen--it was,in my opinion, and the opinions of millions of others, that it was imperative to bring forward articles of impeachment. Trump's blatant violation of his oath of office and of the constitution cannot and should not stand. Even if the Senate does not do the right thing and convict Trump, it is important that those who have power to do the right thing actually do the right thing instead of handwaving cowardice.

I do believe, like most here, that Trump abused power. However, Democrats made a mistake by seeking to impeach Trump literally ever since he took office.
The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun
And who can forget "impeach the motherfucker" rant by Rashida Tlaib?

So now it looks like a partisan witch hunt no matter the facts.

That makes absolutely no sense. Trump clearly committed the crimes that he was impeached for. The fact that there were people who wanted him out of office all along doesn't somehow make holding him accountable for his crimes some sort of witch hunt.

Your point is like a mob boss arguing "Hey, the FBI has been wanting to put me into prison for years, and now all of a sudden they've charged me with murdering one of my rivals for no more reason than that they have a video tape of me shooting him in the face? How is this a fair justice system?"

Also, if they wanted to impeach him earlier they would have for obstructing the Russia investigation. Frankly I'm shocked they waited as long as they did. The argument that they wanted him impeached from day 1 is just as dumb as their other arguments.

Was there people who wanted him out from the get go? Of course, he's fucking Donald Trump: unqualified, bigoted, narcissist, liar.... and yet they let him go for 3 years. I mean, within his first year in office there were people marching with torches shouting "Jews will not replace us". Yes, people wanted that to stop. The Dems went easy on him.

 

[Gun Nut]

So Pelosi wants to delay, but could McConnell just start the trial anyway?

No. Not inline with Constitutional requirements, at least.
The House is supposed to name "managers" that will present the articles of impeachment to the "managers" in Senate that are named by them. Those managers are supposed to be like the Prosecutors. Once that is done, it is all up to Senate to have a trial (in any form they define), that is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

So, Pelosi delaying by not naming the managers and sending them over to present the articles to Senate is a... departure... from the spirit of the Constitution... which to be fair does not set a timeframe, but the obvious intent is that it would be done sometime in the vicinity of 'immediately'.

I understand why Pelosi is delaying sending them over until the stated corruption of the process is resolved.. but in my opinion that makes her look bad, not Mitch.
What I think she should do is follow through with the last of her responsibilities, and let Senate either act the fool in front of the American public, or act like protectors of the constitution in front of the American public.

 

[Treedbear]

So Pelosi wants to delay, but could McConnell just start the trial anyway?

No. Not inline with Constitutional requirements, at least.
The House is supposed to name "managers" that will present the articles of impeachment to the "managers" in Senate that are named by them. Those managers are supposed to be like the Prosecutors. Once that is done, it is all up to Senate to have a trial (in any form they define), that is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

So, Pelosi delaying by not naming the managers and sending them over to present the articles to Senate is a... departure... from the spirit of the Constitution... which to be fair does not set a timeframe, but the obvious intent is that it would be done sometime in the vicinity of 'immediately'.

I understand why Pelosi is delaying sending them over until the stated corruption of the process is resolved.. but in my opinion that makes her look bad, not Mitch.
What I think she should do is follow through with the last of her responsibilities, and let Senate either act the fool in front of the American public, or act like protectors of the constitution in front of the American public.

I don't know what Pelosi's plans are except to be able to have certain witnesses testify. That might backfire as far as I could see, but who knows. It was a surprise to all of us I think that she can delay at all. But I don't think it makes her look bad. It's certainly no worse than McConnell delaying the SCOTUS nominee approval until Obama left office. Plainly she's doing what Dems have been demanding which is playing by the new Republican rules but without stuping to their level of incivility.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So Pelosi wants to delay, but could McConnell just start the trial anyway?

No. Not inline with Constitutional requirements, at least.
The House is supposed to name "managers" that will present the articles of impeachment to the "managers" in Senate that are named by them. Those managers are supposed to be like the Prosecutors. Once that is done, it is all up to Senate to have a trial (in any form they define), that is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

So, Pelosi delaying by not naming the managers and sending them over to present the articles to Senate is a... departure... from the spirit of the Constitution... which to be fair does not set a timeframe, but the obvious intent is that it would be done sometime in the vicinity of 'immediately'.

I understand why Pelosi is delaying sending them over until the stated corruption of the process is resolved.. but in my opinion that makes her look bad, not Mitch.
What I think she should do is follow through with the last of her responsibilities, and let Senate either act the fool in front of the American public, or act like protectors of the constitution in front of the American public.

I don't know what Pelosi's plans are except to be able to have certain witnesses testify. That might backfire as far as I could see, but who knows. It was a surprise to all of us I think that she can delay at all. But I don't think it makes her look bad.

Except there is a plan. This wasn't a sudden decision. Sen. Schumer put forth a plan for a Trial first. That was a jab, McConnell jumped out of the ring and smirked. I don't think he saw the reprisal coming. So certainly, I think Pelosi definitely has a plan.

It's certainly no worse than McConnell delaying the SCOTUS nominee approval until Obama left office.

It isn't even remotely in the same book.

Plainly she's doing what Dems have been demanding which is playing by the new Republican rules but without stuping to their level of incivility.

McConnell thought he held all the cards, but I think Pelosi has reminded him that in DC it isn't that simple. There is definitely a shelf life for this maneuver though.

 

[Treedbear]

...
I don't know what Pelosi's plans are except to be able to have certain witnesses testify. That might backfire as far as I could see, but who knows. It was a surprise to all of us I think that she can delay at all. But I don't think it makes her look bad.

Except there is a plan. This wasn't a sudden decision. Sen. Schumer put forth a plan for a Trial first. That was a jab, McConnell jumped out of the ring and smirked. I don't think he saw the reprisal coming. So certainly, I think Pelosi definitely has a plan.

It's certainly no worse than McConnell delaying the SCOTUS nominee approval until Obama left office.

It isn't even remotely in the same book.

I'll take that as agreement. But if the plan is to force McConnell into bringing out witnesses in order to make Trump's actions even more blatantly obvious so as to convince apathethic Dems and recalcitrant Indies to vote him out, rather than allowing McConnell to play through and give Trump an exoneration boner, then the stakes are about the same because Trump might get to continue appointing SCOTUS judges.

Plainly she's doing what Dems have been demanding which is playing by the new Republican rules but without stuping to their level of incivility.

McConnell thought he held all the cards, but I think Pelosi has reminded him that in DC it isn't that simple. There is definitely a shelf life for this maneuver though.

I don't know. If there's a face-off where they both refuse to budge I think the pressure would be on McConnell. Nothing explicitly mentions a timeframe for approving nominees or, likewise, for sending over the Articles to the Senate. Totally equivalent in those terms, as much as Trump and the Repubs will rant and rave about it. In the meantime Trump's body of lies will just keep swinging in the wind.

 

[repoman]

It could be that there are some real bombshells that the dems know are about to come out - things they are not "supposed" to know it but will be made public via parallel construction. I think this whistleblower was actually a parallel construction op (Trump still DID these acts). Whatever, Trump is even more likely to use it than the Dems.

From wiki:

Parallel construction is a law enforcement process of building a parallel—or separate—evidentiary basis for a criminal investigation in order to conceal how an investigation actually began.

In the US, a particular form is evidence laundering, where one police officer obtains evidence via means that are in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and then passes it on to another officer, who builds on it and gets it accepted by the court under the good-faith exception as applied to the second officer. This practice gained support after the Supreme Court's 2009 Herring v. United States decision.

 

[TV and credit cards]

So Pelosi wants to delay, but could McConnell just start the trial anyway?

No. Not inline with Constitutional requirements, at least.
The House is supposed to name "managers" that will present the articles of impeachment to the "managers" in Senate that are named by them. Those managers are supposed to be like the Prosecutors. Once that is done, it is all up to Senate to have a trial (in any form they define), that is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

So, Pelosi delaying by not naming the managers and sending them over to present the articles to Senate is a... departure... from the spirit of the Constitution... which to be fair does not set a timeframe, but the obvious intent is that it would be done sometime in the vicinity of 'immediately'.

I understand why Pelosi is delaying sending them over until the stated corruption of the process is resolved.. but in my opinion that makes her look bad, not Mitch.
What I think she should do is follow through with the last of her responsibilities, and let Senate either act the fool in front of the American public, or act like protectors of the constitution in front of the American public.

I don’t know what you are referring to as the “spirit of the Constitution” but when the leader of the Senate has made statements in public that he has no intention of placing a check on Executive power, I see it as a duty to her oath to delay what has been referred to as a Potemkin trial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a81b30-202f-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html

 

[repoman]

McConnell is impressive with how low he will go to win, is he in a bubble for how this will play to the public though?

Having a fig leaf of impartiality is a tool he is losing it seems.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Wasn't it obvious from the very start that the Republicans would not vote yes on any impeachment? Trumps numbers have actually moved UP due to this, not down. Scary that.

 

[laughing dog]

I think you miss the point of this. Whether or not Trump is found guilty is not as relevant as the effects this may have on election campaigns, and on how Trump reacts. It seems to me that Trump is one or two steps away from going "postal".

Going postal? Like Son of Sam?

Not physically violent because Trump is a quintessential wussy. But he may get really unhinged.

 

[repoman]

I don't agree with this stupid quote

Is Nancy Pelosi guilty of felony bribery by demanding that the Senate, which has sole power under the Constitution to try Impeachments, give her the benefits of rules favorable to her in exchange for her official act of delivering the Articles of Impeachment?

But it is a halfway decent attempt at sophistry for a certain crowd.

 

[jonatha]

I don't agree with this stupid quote

Is Nancy Pelosi guilty of felony bribery by demanding that the Senate, which has sole power under the Constitution to try Impeachments, give her the benefits of rules favorable to her in exchange for her official act of delivering the Articles of Impeachment?

But it is a halfway decent attempt at sophistry for a certain crowd.

No, because she hasn't asked for "rules favorable to her."

She's asked for "rules."

 

[Trausti]

Wasn't it obvious from the very start that the Republicans would not vote yes on any impeachment? Trumps numbers have actually moved UP due to this, not down. Scary that.

Well, yeah. This impeachment has been rather stupid. No crime. No bipartisan support. Two Dems voted against; one simply present. The whole Ukrainian thing is just meh. Dems announced their intention to impeachment Trump before he was even inaugurated. From the start everyone knows the Senate will reject it. And though Trump had to be impeached because he's a no good, horrible, yucky yuck, Congress just overwhelming passed his replacement to NAFTA. Why does anyone take this seriously?