Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
darkblue

Democrats Begin Impeachment of Trump

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:

exactly, they're practically admitting that Russian collusion and obstruction was and is BS.

...just like trump says it is.

:lol:

Not at all, but the case would be stronger if they added that in as a charge.  It was real, is real and will be real in every election from now on.  ALL the intelligence and military officials have said so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:

exactly, they're practically admitting that Russian collusion and obstruction was and is BS.

...just like trump says it is.

:lol:

uNA4U1U.png

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impeachment matters no matter what the Senate does: Democrats shouldn’t wring their hands over whether Republicans will agree to oust Trump

by Allan Lichtman (a distinguished Professor of History at American University and the author of “The Case for Impeachment.")

Critics who say that the impeachment of President Trump is futile because the Republican Senate will never vote to convict and remove him are wrong morally, constitutionally, and politically.

Morally, only articles of impeachment voted by the U.S. House of Representatives will hold the president accountable for his transgressions. Otherwise, he will continue to undermine our democracy and set a precedent for the unchecked abuse of power by future presidents. Trump does not want his brand tarnished by becoming only the third president in American history to be charged by Congress with committing high crimes and misdemeanors.

The critics are wrong constitutionally because the House has the sole authority for impeachment.

America’s founders put impeachment into the Constitution, not as a catastrophic contingency, but as a legal, orderly and peaceful means for removing a dangerous leader without resort to revolution or assassination.

The House has a responsibility to decide for itself whether the president has committed impeachable offenses. It is not their role to consult a cracked crystal ball to foretell what the Senate may or may not do when all the facts are on the table.

Politically, if the House votes articles of impeachment against Trump, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has two unpalatable choices. First, he could follow the precedent of past presidential impeachments and hold a formal trial in the Senate.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who has a demonstrated fidelity to the law. not McConnell or Senate President Mike Pence, would preside over the trial. At trial, House designated managers would point an accusing finger at the president through opening and closing statements, live testimony and documentary evidence. They would cross-examine witnesses for the president and compel his lawyers to present real arguments and evidence, not just Rudy Giuliani-style television spin.

Only the third Senate trial of an American president in U.S. history would command public attention and present in a focused setting all evidence of the president’s alleged “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The weight of the evidence against President Trump could be compelling, even to Senate Republicans.

Although President Richard Nixon resigned before he was impeached and tried, damning public testimony before congressional committees drove his 67 percent approval rating down to 25 percent and turned leaders of his own party against him. Even if the Senate ultimately acquitted the president, the revelations of a public Senate trial could crack Trump’s voter support and doom his chances for reelection. The impeachment of Bill Clinton may have lost a few House seats for Republicans, but it gave them the greater prize of the presidency in 2000. George W. Bush campaigned on the themes of restoring honesty and integrity to the White House and a quarter of voters said the scandal was very important for their decisions.

Senate Republicans could attempt to dismiss summarily the charges against President Trump. But Republicans have only a thin three-vote majority and there may be enough principled, retiring, and politically vulnerable Senators to join with Democrats to block any attempt to avoid a full Senate trial, which the gravity of a presidential impeachment clearly demands.

Shakespeare wrote, “there is a tide in the affairs of men. Which taken at the flood leads on to fortune.” The tide is rising for America, and for the first time, Democrats seem to be seizing it at the flood for the good fortune of our country.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-trump-impeachment-republicans-democrats-house-senate-20190924-gltv73loo5binckzt3nquarnhu-story.html

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should set up a bunch of dog kennels under the rotunda of the US Congress and put all those deemed in contempt of congress in them for the public to jeer at. What goes around comes around. lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the coming months of all the noise from the democrats and their msm and an obligatory kangaroo guilty in the house and the senate will flush this load away quickly.

:)

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the next Democrat becomes president EVERY phone call made to Russia and the Ukraine better be scrutinized! Gone over with a fine tooth comb.  What's good for the goose..

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

When the next Democrat becomes president EVERY phone call made to Russia and the Ukraine better be scrutinized! Gone over with a fine tooth comb.  What's good for the goose..

Let me ask you a question, and I'm not trying to set you up for some snarky comment or rude dismissal, I'm sincerely curious: do you think what Trump has done with the call to Ukraine is wrong? If not, why? How about the attempt at a cover-up afterward (AG Barr using the secret server to store the call log, against protocol [law?])? Do you think that the whistleblower is sincere, or a partisan attacker? If the latter, why do you think that?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Let me ask you a question, and I'm not trying to set you up for some snarky comment or rude dismissal, I'm sincerely curious: do you think what Trump has done with the call to Ukraine is wrong? If not, why? How about the attempt at a cover-up afterward (AG Barr using the secret server to store the call log, against protocol [law?])? Do you think that the whistleblower is sincere, or a partisan attacker? If the latter, why do you think that?

I've heard what he state is based on hearsay / rumor. This Trump bashing haven't stop for the past 3 years - EVEN BEFORE HE TOOK THE OATH OF OFFICE! No treatment / cure for 2016itis.  Can't wait for double standards!

2020 is quickly approaching and the Democrats are freaking out because of their weak base.

I made a prediction back on November 2016 in that Trump was going to face hell from the left / progressives/ globalist / the New World Order.  Didn't need a crystal ball for that one.

There's a 50/50 chance either Trump or Biden will win.  Hold on to your seats, this ride to going to be bumpy without a suspension system.

( I do think Biden will win the Democratic nomination unless something unforeseen comes up)

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hamradio said:

I've heard what he state is based on hearsay / rumor.

But didn't the White House themselves release a call summary that said the same thing as the whistleblower's complaint?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

But didn't the White House themselves release a call summary that said the same thing as the whistleblower's complaint?

Rumor has it yes. :P

Edited by hamradio
added an emoji
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hamradio said:

That one  went over your head. 

Oh, you were trying to be funny again? One day you'll do it, I'm sure.

I politely asked you to discuss the issues at hand, but it's little surprise that you were unable to. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Oh, you were trying to be funny again? One day you'll do it, I'm sure.

I politely asked you to discuss the issues at hand, but it's little surprise that you were unable to. 

I just included an emoji.  Odd in that they demand the whistleblower has anonymity, so how can the info be challenged / validated / confirmed?  This is why the court of law NEVER allows it (hearsay evidence).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, noah80 said:

Impeachment matters no matter what the Senate does: Democrats shouldn’t wring their hands over whether Republicans will agree to oust Trump

by Allan Lichtman (a distinguished Professor of History at American University and the author of “The Case for Impeachment.")

Critics who say that the impeachment of President Trump is futile because the Republican Senate will never vote to convict and remove him are wrong morally, constitutionally, and politically.

Morally, only articles of impeachment voted by the U.S. House of Representatives will hold the president accountable for his transgressions. Otherwise, he will continue to undermine our democracy and set a precedent for the unchecked abuse of power by future presidents. Trump does not want his brand tarnished by becoming only the third president in American history to be charged by Congress with committing high crimes and misdemeanors.

The critics are wrong constitutionally because the House has the sole authority for impeachment.

America’s founders put impeachment into the Constitution, not as a catastrophic contingency, but as a legal, orderly and peaceful means for removing a dangerous leader without resort to revolution or assassination.

The House has a responsibility to decide for itself whether the president has committed impeachable offenses. It is not their role to consult a cracked crystal ball to foretell what the Senate may or may not do when all the facts are on the table.

Politically, if the House votes articles of impeachment against Trump, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has two unpalatable choices. First, he could follow the precedent of past presidential impeachments and hold a formal trial in the Senate.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who has a demonstrated fidelity to the law. not McConnell or Senate President Mike Pence, would preside over the trial. At trial, House designated managers would point an accusing finger at the president through opening and closing statements, live testimony and documentary evidence. They would cross-examine witnesses for the president and compel his lawyers to present real arguments and evidence, not just Rudy Giuliani-style television spin.

Only the third Senate trial of an American president in U.S. history would command public attention and present in a focused setting all evidence of the president’s alleged “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The weight of the evidence against President Trump could be compelling, even to Senate Republicans.

Although President Richard Nixon resigned before he was impeached and tried, damning public testimony before congressional committees drove his 67 percent approval rating down to 25 percent and turned leaders of his own party against him. Even if the Senate ultimately acquitted the president, the revelations of a public Senate trial could crack Trump’s voter support and doom his chances for reelection. The impeachment of Bill Clinton may have lost a few House seats for Republicans, but it gave them the greater prize of the presidency in 2000. George W. Bush campaigned on the themes of restoring honesty and integrity to the White House and a quarter of voters said the scandal was very important for their decisions.

Senate Republicans could attempt to dismiss summarily the charges against President Trump. But Republicans have only a thin three-vote majority and there may be enough principled, retiring, and politically vulnerable Senators to join with Democrats to block any attempt to avoid a full Senate trial, which the gravity of a presidential impeachment clearly demands.

Shakespeare wrote, “there is a tide in the affairs of men. Which taken at the flood leads on to fortune.” The tide is rising for America, and for the first time, Democrats seem to be seizing it at the flood for the good fortune of our country.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-trump-impeachment-republicans-democrats-house-senate-20190924-gltv73loo5binckzt3nquarnhu-story.html

As noted in the article, the Republicans lost seats in the House and broke even in Senate in next election after impeaching, trying and failing to convict Clinton.

George W. Bush "stole" the election in 2000 and there were a multitude of reasons why Gore lost.  I find it very hard to believe that 25% of voters voted against Gore and for Bush II because of what Clinton did.  The article says the scandal was important to them, not that they voted for Bush II because of what Clinton did.

As for Nixon, that is ancient history and irrelevant to 2019 America.  Those days and those type Republicans are gone, gone, gone.

Share this post


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

Not going to debate this all day.  Odd in that they demand the whistleblower has anonymity, so how can the info be challenged / validated / confirmed?  This is why the court of law NEVER allows it (hearsay evidence).

I realize it is a waste of time to disagree, but the whistleblower law dictates anonymity.  That is a core element of the law. Regardless, it has nothing to do with hearsay as the whistleblower completed a form and the IG, as well as others, decided it had merit.  The DNI considered it significant enough to demand the right to testify before Congress. 

The Trump administration, AG Barr and others considered it significant enough and valid enough that they tried to keep records of the conversations so classified that no one would read them.

These are Lawrence's questions which you have yet to answer: "Let me ask you a question, and I'm not trying to set you up for some snarky comment or rude dismissal, I'm sincerely curious: do you think what Trump has done with the call to Ukraine is wrong? If not, why? How about the attempt at a cover-up afterward (AG Barr using the secret server to store the call log, against protocol [law?])? Do you think that the whistleblower is sincere, or a partisan attacker? If the latter, why do you think that?"

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I realize it is a waste of time to disagree, but the whistleblower law dictates anonymity.  That is a core element of the law. Regardless, it has nothing to do with hearsay as the whistleblower completed a form and the IG, as well as others, decided it had merit.  The DNI considered it significant enough to demand the right to testify before Congress. 

The Trump administration, AG Barr and others considered it significant enough and valid enough that they tried to keep records of the conversations so classified that no one would read them.

These are Lawrence's questions which you have yet to answer: "Let me ask you a question, and I'm not trying to set you up for some snarky comment or rude dismissal, I'm sincerely curious: do you think what Trump has done with the call to Ukraine is wrong? If not, why? How about the attempt at a cover-up afterward (AG Barr using the secret server to store the call log, against protocol [law?])? Do you think that the whistleblower is sincere, or a partisan attacker? If the latter, why do you think that?"

I asked Ham those questions because I've read today that there are several conservative pundits and politicians who have already moved from the "it didn't happen" defense to the "it doesn't matter" defense. They concede that everything happened as laid out thus far, but that they don't see anything wrong with any of it. I was curious if Ham felt the same, and if so, how someone gets to that point. In other words, I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't just engaging in blind partisanship, but that appears to be the case, based on his responses.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I asked Ham those questions because I've read today that there are several conservative pundits and politicians who have already moved from the "it didn't happen" defense to the "it doesn't matter" defense. They concede that everything happened as laid out thus far, but that they don't see anything wrong with any of it. I was curious if Ham felt the same, and if so, how someone gets to that point. In other words, I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't just engaging in blind partisanship, but that appears to be the case, based on his responses.

I don't remember the Clinton trial that well, but seems to me they failed to convict for pretty much the "it does not matter" or "it happened, but not serious enough to remove from office."

I think you questions are valid.

Have thought about contacting Sen. Lindsay Graham, who was one of the "prosecutors" in the Clinton Senate trial.  Would ask how he could think Clinton was totally guilty and should be convicted and removed and he does not even think Trump should be subject to impeachment inquiry.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheCid said:

I don't remember the Clinton trial that well, but seems to me they failed to convict for pretty much the "it does not matter" or "it happened, but not serious enough to remove from office."

I think you questions are valid.

Have thought about contacting Sen. Lindsay Graham, who was one of the "prosecutors" in the Clinton Senate trial.  Would ask how he could think Clinton was totally guilty and should be convicted and removed and he does not even think Trump should be subject to impeachment inquiry.

For what it's worth, I think the impeachment of Clinton was silly.  So he lied about cigaring an intern, oh my there goes the country. :wacko:

If he actually did had sex, wouldn't he had 2 shiners administered by Hillary? :lol:

Share this post


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

 

As for Nixon, that is ancient history and irrelevant to 2019 America.  Those days and those type Republicans are gone, gone, gone.

You're going to mess up John Dean's gig. :(

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...