The Trump Impeachment Thread

Quote: terapined

How do you know if a lawyer or AOS is lying? Their lips or moving or he's posting on DT.lol

Personal insult, three-day suspension.

Quote: ams288

Can’t schedule the vote if Pelosi😏

Such a farce. Clinton was guilty
of actual full fledged real crimes
and nobody denied it. There were
55 Repub Senators and they never
even got close to 67 votes. Unless
a president kills somebody while
in office, one will never be removed.

That was the founders intent. That
the crime should be so heinous
he must be fired. They couldn't
even find a jaywalking crime to
accuse Trump of, so they made
some up.

Quote: Evenbob

There were 55 Repub Senators and they never even got close to 67 votes.

On Article One, 45 senators voted to convict while 55 voted for acquittal.
On Article Two, 50 senators voted to convict while 50 voted for acquittal.

Quote: Pacomartin

On Article One, 45 senators voted to convict while 55 voted for acquittal.
On Article Two, 50 senators voted to convict while 50 voted for acquittal.

And that's nowhere near 67 votes.
The only way a president will ever
be removed is if it's a 60 40 Senate
and they talk 7 into voting against
their own party. Never gonna happen.

Maybe Pelosi's grand scheme is to totally take the wind out of the sails for whoever wins in the early states in order to help in the draft Clinton movement...or the make sure Biden wins movement. She already invited the President to give his State of the Union on February 4th, the day after Iowa caucuses. That will hurt the winner their by taking away some of the news cycle because they will spend all day speculating on how the SOU will go and what will be said. Maybe she can toss the impeachment over to the Senate in time to mess up another day after or day of...

I know she says that she is doing it to make sure their is a fair trial in the Senate, which is really funny based on the crap show she allowed to happen in the House. She had her worst two performers in charge of the committees involved and it showed. I know the left is celebrating Schiff, one even said that he was "very judicious in terms of his public utterances" (Garry South, Californina Democrat strategist). That is like saying that President Trump is very judicious in terms of his public utterances...and, for those of you who don't already know, he is not. Schiff had that whole weird false monologue that he went through. He could have done a much better job just by playing the role he was in straight and going from there.

Nadler was a joke; he couldn't even run the hearing without running over people. Sometimes you just need to conduct the hearing, rule on the objections and handle the points of order, and make yourself look capable of doing the job.

Anyway, the Speaker said she didn't want impeachment, then she allowed it to happen, and now she is holding on to it. Can't wait to see what comes next.

Quote: RonC

Maybe Pelosi's grand scheme is to totally take the wind out of the sails for whoever wins in the early states in order to help in the draft Clinton movement...or the make sure Biden wins movement. She already invited the President to give his State of the Union on February 4th, the day after Iowa caucuses. That will hurt the winner their by taking away some of the news cycle because they will spend all day speculating on how the SOU will go and what will be said. Maybe she can toss the impeachment over to the Senate in time to mess up another day after or day of...

I know she says that she is doing it to make sure their is a fair trial in the Senate, which is really funny based on the crap show she allowed to happen in the House. She had her worst two performers in charge of the committees involved and it showed. I know the left is celebrating Schiff, one even said that he was "very judicious in terms of his public utterances" (Garry South, Californina Democrat strategist). That is like saying that President Trump is very judicious in terms of his public utterances...and, for those of you who don't already know, he is not. Schiff had that whole weird false monologue that he went through. He could have done a much better job just by playing the role he was in straight and going from there.

Nadler was a joke; he couldn't even run the hearing without running over people. Sometimes you just need to conduct the hearing, rule on the objections and handle the points of order, and make yourself look capable of doing the job.

Anyway, the Speaker said she didn't want impeachment, then she allowed it to happen, and now she is holding on to it. Can't wait to see what comes next.

You’re saying the Republicans were only about fairness, and their last second objections weren’t just designed to make it look like Nadler was suppressing them, even though they had hours of time to put the most significant points and questions into the public testimony, or that they didn’t receive equal time, even though they did.

Btw, what extremely important questions or points did they not get to make? Can you name ANY, even one.

Senators now have the chance to call any and all possible witnesses and prove they are fair. Let’s see how fair they are?

"How do you know if a lawyer or AOS is lying? Their lips or moving or he's posting on DT.lol"

Quote: Wizard

Personal insult, three-day suspension.

Bout time somebody was noticing this
stuff. The personal insults here are
getting out of hand, all coming from
a couple people.

Quote: rxwine

You’re saying the Republicans were only about fairness, and their last second objections weren’t just designed to make it look like Nadler was suppressing them, even though they had hours of time to put the most significant points and questions into the public testimony, or that they didn’t receive equal time, even though they did.

Btw, what extremely important questions or points did they not get to make? Can you name ANY, even one.

Senators now have the chance to call any and all possible witnesses and prove they are fair. Let’s see how fair they are?

First, they did not, by design of the committees, have equal time. Unless a committee has an equal number of members from each party, one side gets more time.

As to the fairness...Nope. I am not saying that at all. Are we to suddenly believe that one party is going to provide fairness while the other runs roughshod over it? Not much of a chance of that in today's world of politics. The Democrats provided a process that allowed them to hold all the cards and suppress the minority party's already limited ability to call witnesses...the best point from that side of the aisle that I can easily find as to why Nadler just ignored the request (I believe he should have manned up and stated the logic behind his reasoning) is this:

"Vital for this purpose, section 4(c)(1) of the resolution states that the ranking member of the committee is authorized to choose witnesses for testimony, but with a critical caveat: the chair of the committee must concur with the ranking member’s choice. That is, without agreement from the Democratic chairman, the ranking member’s prerogative in this matter is effectively null."

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/12/12/the-minority-witness-rule-explained-and-why-it-might-be-irrelevant-for-impeachment/

What questions would they have asked or point would they have been able to make? Who knows; they didn't get that chance. One little old extra day, on a weekend, would not have slowed the process in the least. It was predetermined, just as the results in the Senate are. That extra day would have still allowed all of the votes to occur on time. What did the Democrats have to lose by allowing an extra day of witnessed?

The reason there is no fairness required in this process is that it is a purely political play. Democrats wanted to impeach starting before the President took office. They thought of several ideas and none of them got them where they wanted. They still wanted to impeach. The base pushed for impeachment. So they did it.

The whole point is that a President has now been impeached because the other party didn't like him. Do I think he is perfect? Far from it. Do I think he is going to make 8 years without a real impeachment? Who the hell knows; he is a live wire, for sure.

I guess the Dems can be happy about that, but I really still don't get the point.

Will Trump become the first president to be impeached more than once?

Quote: RonC

F
What questions would they have asked or point would they have been able to make? Who knows; they didn't get that chance.

That's some wild speculation that in all the hours of testimony, something of any merit was missed by Republicans.

Like I said, the Republican controlled senate has a chance to call all the witnesses they want to debunk the claim they didn't get witnesses. THAT'S ALL THEY HAVE TO DO.