No Excuses

The Impeachment Thread

Impeachment  

193 members have voted

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



Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

Over a year ago I compared Trump and his cult to Chancellor Palpatine and the Republic.

 

At the time I was somewhat joking but now?

 

Yeah.....ūü§Ē

 

Nah. Palpatine was a strategic and tactical genius who manipulated his way to the top and to an entire takeover of a galactic republic via decades of planning, all while managing to remain invisible to the Jedi. Trump is a simpleminded orange man-child who bumbled his way into office via a combination of sheer luck, having an awful personality that happened to mimic the ugliest undercurrents of the GOP base which the Republicans had been cultivating for decades, and living in a country where about half of the population seems to be straight from the movie Idiocracy.

 

Also, Palpatine was ludicrously strong in the Force. Trump's only superpower is the ability to lose twitter fights with 16 year olds. 

Edited by mistertim
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah I mean there is no rule that the Democrats have to vote for impeachment, so if the guy is a die in the wool Democrat, but doesn't want to vote for impeachment, yet agrees with Democrats on most every other issue out there, how does switching parties make sense?   Instead it seems like this guy is reading the tea leaves and see his only chance for political survival is to switch parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I'm curious about is how much power Chief Justice Roberts will have. Could the Dems file the equivalent of a motion for certain Republican Senators to be forced to recuse themselves from the vote due to them openly stating that they're working with the WH, have already predetermined their votes, and will do everything in their power to scuttle the whole thing?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, twa said:

That would be disenfranchising people.....ya could try to impeach him

 

How is someone disqualifying themselves as a juror disenfranchising people? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

How is someone disqualifying themselves as a juror disenfranchising people? 

 

the people he represents no longer have a vote....ergo....

 

 

Quote

 

Presidential candidates serving in the Senate must recuse themselves from impeachment proceedings

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/473674-presidential-candidates-serving-in-the-senate-must-recuse

 

The members of the United States Senate seeking election to the presidency have already reached a verdict, dismissing the fundamental principle of our democracy that Americans are innocent until proven guilty. In their race to the left, candidates have been calling for President Trump’s impeachment for months, even before the launch of any official impeachment inquiry. How can they now swear to act as an impartial juror?

 

 

the only person being recused is the VP, and Roberts replaces him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, twa said:

 

the people he represents no longer have a vote....ergo....

 

 

 

the only person being recused is the VP, and Roberts replaces him.

 

This is an impeachment, not an election vote. The Senators are supposed to act as jurors, not necessarily as people representing their constituents. 

 

As far as the presidential candidates have a couple of things:

 

1) Have any of them actually said "I'm going to vote this way and I'm not even going to bother listening to the evidence" as McConnell and Graham have?

2) They don't have nearly the kind of impact that McConnell does. He's the majority leader in the Senate and he's said out loud that he will be working hand in hand with the WH to make sure the whole thing goes how the WH wants and/or to simply try to scuttle the whole thing without hearing any evidence from any witnesses. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll freely admit I made up my mind about impeachment years ago. 
 

It happened right after Trump fired the head of the FBI because he wouldn't promise to make sure that the national security investigation he was running wouldn't mention the Trump campaign people who were involved. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 

This is a stupid argument even if you actually assume that's true. 

 

Let's say the Dems have wanted to impeach Trump for a long time and have been hoping he'd do something that was obviously impeachable. That doesn't necessarily mean that's the case. But sure, let's assume it is.

 

So what? What specific facts of what Trump has done and is being impeached for have been changed by this? Zero. If I'm a cop and I'm pretty sure a guy is a criminal (based on a decent amount of past evidence) and I just wait and keep an eye on him until he does something criminal out in the open, does that mean I shouldn't arrest him because I believed he was a criminal from the get go? Does that mean he can do whatever he wants and get away with it because I was already waiting for him to do something like that?

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those evil Democrats set a trap for Trump. They wanted to impeach him. So they waited till he committed a crime in front of witnesses. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

This is a stupid argument even if you actually assume that's true. 

 

 

 

Of course it is, he has to be excused since he is a Democrat though.

Share this post


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

 

Of course it is, he has to be excused since he is a Democrat though.

 

Care to address the actual, ya know, points I made in my whole post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

Nah. Palpatine was a strategic and tactical genius who manipulated his way to the top and to an entire takeover of a galactic republic via decades of planning, all while managing to remain invisible to the Jedi. Trump is a simpleminded orange man-child who bumbled his way into office via a combination of sheer luck, having an awful personality that happened to mimic the ugliest undercurrents of the GOP base which the Republicans had been cultivating for decades, and living in a country where about half of the population seems to be straight from the movie Idiocracy.

 

Also, Palpatine was ludicrously strong in the Force. Trump's only superpower is the ability to lose twitter fights with 16 year olds. 

There was an episode on the Adam West Batman series when Penguin ran for mayor. Corpulent faux rich guy putting on airs that always thinks of himself? Small flipper like hands?

 

Just saying.

6 hours ago, Larry said:

Those evil Democrats set a trap for Trump. They wanted to impeach him. So they waited till he committed a crime in front of witnesses. 

and had himself, Mulvaney, and others publicly confess to it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Larry said:

I'll freely admit I made up my mind about impeachment years ago. 
 

It happened right after Trump fired the head of the FBI because he wouldn't promise to make sure that the national security investigation he was running wouldn't mention the Trump campaign people who were involved. 

Hell, I wouldn't even mind if Trump were impeached over Trump U. He's been convicted of defrauding thousands of people in a phony university scam. Sadly, it was a civil case. But even given that lower bar, he's a felon serving in the White House.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
The last time I spoke to Debbie Dingell was her call thanking me for granting top memorial and funeral service honors for her then just departed husband, long time Congressman John Dingell. Now I watch her ripping me as part of the Democrats Impeachment Hoax. Really pathetic!
 
Everything with this guy really is quid pro quo. 
 
Because he did something for her, (which in this case was something he should do anyway) he expects complete and unwavering loyalty. 
anything less is pathetic to him.
 
Edited by redskinss
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

1) I have no idea how many times this has to be said, but in an impeachment the House does an INVESTIGATION; it isn't a goddamn trial. 

2) Even though it's an investigation, the president DID get a chance to speak his mind through his counsel when the Judiciary Committee held hearings. The White House declined to have their counsel participate when invited. 

3) Rand Paul is an insult to the concept of the human brain. 

Edited by mistertim
  • Like 4

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.