Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Impeachment Thread


No Excuses

Impeachment  

198 members have voted

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



Recommended Posts

This story in reality is already over.

 

At some point later this year, Trump will be impeached.  The Senate will not remove him.  It will be quick trial, probably a day or two.

 

Trump wins electorial college over Elizabeth Warren in the fall of 2020.  Elizabeth Warren wins the popular vote by at least 5 million.

 

Trump gets impeached again in 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Springfield said:

It’ll be real funny when a Democrat becomes president, decides that they want to put republican opponents in prison because they ****ing want to and Republicans won’t be able to do anything about it because of Donald Trump.

 

Careful what you wish for twa 

 

 I point out the limits of powers and this is what I get?

 

If two out of three agree I'm ****ed. 🃏

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twa said:

Nothing is unconstitutional until ruled so.....more so every day.

 

They are co-equal....till they ain't.

 

Congress can say they don't need to vote for impeachment inquiry and POTUS can say it is not valid w/o a vote.

 

Neither position has been determined by the court....the other equal

 

When was the last time something was ruled unconstitutional when "because we don't like it" was the reason? That's basically what the White House's entire argument is premised on at this point (well, that and handing out execution threats and accusations of treason). Where in the Constitution does it even mention anything about a House vote in order to proceed with an impeachment inquiry? What happened to "Strict Constructionism"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

. Where in the Constitution does it even mention anything about a House vote in order to proceed with an impeachment inquiry? What happened to "Strict Constructionism"? 

 

Why did they always vote to begin impeachment hearings in the past?

 

Pelosi hopes to play the game with her thumb on the scale...if it is allowed then worse is coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 I point out the limits of powers and this is what I get?

 

If two out of three agree I'm ****ed. 🃏

 

 


There’s nothing in the constitution that says a president can’t jail his political opponents.  Guess we’ll just have to leave it up to the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Why did they always vote to begin impeachment hearings in the past?

 

Pelosi hopes to play the game with her thumb on the scale...if it is allowed then worse is coming.

 

Completely different situations.

 

In the case of Nixon the House Judiciary Committee had already spent many months investigating and gathering evidence before they actually voted on an official impeachment inquiry. They'd already been doing the inquiry but not "officially". The biggest difference was that then they didn't have a White House that literally said "**** you, we're above the law. I give you nothing at all, no matter how you ask or tell me to"; the Nixon WH was at least cooperating on some level, even if they pushed back on some things. It's pretty sad when you look back on the goddamn Nixon administration wistfully. 

 

With Clinton the impeachment inquiry was also basically already done before the vote. Difference is instead of the House doing their own investigation through the Committees as they are now, they did it through Starr. Star spent a long ass time on his investigation, finally found something they could charge Clinton with, and then gave his report to the House who then had a vote for an impeachment inquiry. It was signed, sealed, delivered. Done. They already had all of the documents and evidence they needed. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Springfield said:


There’s nothing in the constitution that says a president can’t jail his political opponents.  Guess we’ll just have to leave it up to the courts.

 

Both the law and courts have weighed in on burden of proof and the limits of prosecution.

 

Course that **** can change. 🤡

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Springfield said:


 

To put it bluntly, if Trump gets away with refusing to cooperate then you might as well dissolve Congress.  I’m sure twa might want a powerless Congress when they don’t align with his politics, but I don’t.

 

Congress is far from powerless, or all powerful.

 

They do have more power when they vote to do something though.  🏋️‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

With Clinton the impeachment inquiry was also basically already done before the vote. Difference is instead of the House doing their own investigation through the Committees as they are now, they did it through Starr. Star spent a long ass time on his investigation, finally found something they could charge Clinton with, and then gave his report to the House who then had a vote for an impeachment inquiry. It was signed, sealed, delivered. Done. They already had all of the documents and evidence they needed. 

 


I believe this is called:  An actual ****ing witch hunt.

 

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Congress is far from powerless, or all powerful.

 

They do have more power when they vote to do something though.  🏋️‍♂️


Do you actually believe a vote would fail?  And when it didn’t that suddenly the president would change his tune?

 

Tell me you aren’t that naive.  So let’s skip the bs here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Springfield said:


 

 


Do you actually believe a vote would fail?  And when it didn’t that suddenly the president would change his tune?

 

Tell me you aren’t that naive.  So let’s skip the bs here.

 

A vote officially changes things....ignore that if you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

A vote officially changes things....ignore that if you wish.

 

Did you read what the earlier call with the WH produced? The WH basically said "We might consider cooperating with a potential impeachment inquiry if the Democrats end their impeachment inquiry immediately. But we won't commit to anything". Yeah that seems legit. 

 

It's bull****. They're not going to cooperate, period. If the House passed an impeachment inquiry vote they'll just trot out some new lame ass excuse for why they won't turn over documents or allow people to testify. 

 

They're crooks and rotten to the core. We both know this. They've done nothing for 3 years but show it. Not just show it, but flaunt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

To put it bluntly, if Trump gets away with refusing to cooperate then you might as well dissolve Congress.  I’m sure twa might want a powerless Congress when they don’t align with his politics, but I don’t.

I'm in favor of dissolving the vast majority of our current congress. I suggest acid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

This story in reality is already over.

 

At some point later this year, Trump will be impeached.  The Senate will not remove him.  It will be quick trial, probably a day or two.

 

Trump wins electorial college over Elizabeth Warren in the fall of 2020.  Elizabeth Warren wins the popular vote by at least 5 million.

 

Trump gets impeached again in 2021.

Trump is going to stroke out way before then. Dudes head might explode this week. He's not nearly as tough as the guy he's pretending to be. His strategy is driven by fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...