No Excuses

The Impeachment Thread

Impeachment  

191 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Donald Trump be impeached for obstruction of justice?



Recommended Posts

I'd say that's true of a bunch of our foreign policy positions and allies. They no longer trust us. Because Trump and Republicans. That's just sad.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I'd say that's true of a bunch of our foreign policy positions and allies. They no longer trust us. Because Trump and Republicans. That's just sad.

At this point there is only one element allies can trust - Trump calls them human scum (Hint they are not Dems).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah right. The GOP created Donald Trump, bent over for Donald Trump, and is actively helping Donald Trump destroy every American alliance & democratic norm for some votes and donors. The GOP is a bunch of whores.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shocked.  Anybody else shocked?  

 

Can we change the name to "Obstruction of Justice Department"?  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

The Nation: Don’t Count the Senate Out on Impeachment  

 

Talk about pure fantasy.  There is no way in hell, you will get 20 GOPers to convict Trump. I doubt you even get 5.  

 

How many GOP senators in races they could lose?  If the poll results start turning on them in there races, I can see some freaking out (they already scared about it in private)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the real trial of Donald Trump, and the real jury, is the public square.  

 

Where, unfortunately, there are a lt less rules.  (And one side is perfectly fine with breaking all of them.)  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

The Nation: Don’t Count the Senate Out on Impeachment  

 

Talk about pure fantasy.  There is no way in hell, you will get 20 GOPers to convict Trump. I doubt you even get 5.  

 

There's either going to be 1 (Romney) with 2-3 Dems voting no... or there's going to be 40. It will be near unanimous either way. GOP won't force members to take hard votes... if someone important decides that Republicans have a much better shot in 2020 without Trump than with him, they'll all bail on him at the same time. I don't really see it... yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Larry said:

I'm shocked.  Anybody else shocked?  

 

Can we change the name to "Obstruction of Justice Department"?  

 

Not sure if we can, but we definitely should. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

So, Don, 

 

You gonna tell the Obstruction of Justice Department to quit demanding that every search warrant has to go through the Supreme Court?  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I think each and every person who defies these subpoenas should be in a holding cell. They know they have been legally and properly executed. They know that if it were any other President that they would obey them. Hell, Bill Clinton never tried to block them in this way.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, visionary said:
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Says this may warrant contempt proceedings"

 

 

I hope Chairman Schiff will understand why some of us will regard this threat as laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Frankly, I think each and every person who defies these subpoenas should be in a holding cell. They know they have been legally and properly executed. They know that if it were any other President that they would obey them. Hell, Bill Clinton never tried to block them in this way.

 

last i checked, subpoenas were not optional. must be nice to have that kind of privilege 

 

regardless of 45's ultimate fate, the damage to the institutions repubs used to pretend to hold sacrosanct is evident and will not be repaired in my lifetime

Edited by StillUnknown
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, StillUnknown said:

 

last i checked, subpoenas were not optional. must be nice to have that kind of privilege 

 

regardless of 45's ultimate fate, the damage to the institutions repubs used to pretend to hold sacrosanct is evident and will not be repaired in my lifetime

 

Disagree.  There could be a genuine desire to try to plug many of the holes 45 exploited before someone else tries again.  If it does happen, the discussion will be had in the first term, and whether we trust it will depend on when its tested again.  I believe the institutions didnt totally collapse and held their ground better then most government could hope for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Frankly, I think each and every person who defies these subpoenas should be in a holding cell. They know they have been legally and properly executed. They know that if it were any other President that they would obey them. Hell, Bill Clinton never tried to block them in this way.

 

I don't think I'd be quite that broad with that brush.  

 

OK, maybe 99% of them are simply giving the finger, while making some kind of mumbo-jumbo that they know isn't valid in the first place.  Something comparable to claiming "this subpoena is invalid because it's not on green paper."  

 

But, say, Krupperman's lawsuit, which I read as saying "Hey, your honor, I've got orders here, ne from the Congress, one from the Attorney General, giving me contradictory orders.  Can you give me a ruling on what's the legal thing to do?" sounds to me like a valid question to ask a court.  

 

If we're voting on Contempt resolutions, I'm not sure I'd vote for one for him.  At least based on what tiny bit I understand.  

 

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I don't think I'd be quite that broad with that brush.  

 

OK, maybe 99% of them are simply giving the finger, while making some kind of mumbo-jumbo that they know isn't valid in the first place.  Something comparable to claiming "this subpoena is invalid because it's not on green paper."  

 

But, say, Krupperman's lawsuit, which I read as saying "Hey, your honor, I've got orders here, ne from the Congress, one from the Attorney General, giving me contradictory orders.  Can you give me a ruling on what's the legal thing to do?" sounds to me like a valid question to ask a court.  

 

If we're voting on Contempt resolutions, I'm not sure I'd vote for one for him.  At least based on what tiny bit I understand.  

 

I can buy that with the caveat that the Attorney General's orders are likely unlawful and he should face consequences for pushing this practice.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have an issue with someone asking a judge for guidance if they are being told two different things. However, if the judge rules that they need to comply with the subpoena and then they simply move onto some other reason why they aren't going to show up, then there is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I can buy that with the caveat that the Attorney General's orders are likely unlawful and he should face consequences for pushing this practice.

 

Congress can impeach the AG.  I sure think Obstruction of Justice is warranted.  

 

Betsy de Vos ignoring court orders might well qualify, too.  

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now