Impeachment powwowFollow

What a farce.

Trump should be in full-gloat by the end of the week. This much self-admiration however could blow up his head.

No worries. Sue has assured us that trump has learned his lesson. (twitter, fb and others really need to capture Zam's emojis - they're the best).

No where near as weak as an opportunity wiener sucking (trying to find a term that the filter will allow - bear with me).




Edited, Feb 14th 2020 7:01pm by Elinda

Edited, Feb 14th 2020 7:02pm by Elinda

No. That was a bad decision as well. And, for those who have been around this forum long enough, one that I thought was wrong at the time, and have consistently disagreed with since. I've been consistent in my opinion on impeachment. Can you say the same?

No, they didn't. The GOP decided to ignore the evidence.[/quote]

Huh? I'm talking about all the witnesses and evidence that they could have gone through the proper process of subpeona to obtain, but decided not to when collecting evidence in the House, but then cried about once the trial was in progress in the Senate. The way they did this made it obvious that they didn't actually want those witnesses and evidence, they just wanted the talking point about how they were blocked from getting it. Up to the point where one of the committee members actually filed for a subpeona, was granted it, the judge agreed to expedite the process and have an answer in a week, and Shiff withdrew the subpeona. Again. They didn't want those witnesse to actually testify. They wanted the appearance that they weren't allowed to.

It was a PR stunt from start to finish.



Huh? Source for this claim? I followed this pretty closely and don't recall Trump every admitting to colluding with Ukraine. Er... And I thought it was the Russians. Or are you confused? There was no Mueller "trial", it was an investigation. And it had nothing to do with Trump's phone call (now a conversation is "collusion"?). The Mueller investigation was completed nearly a year before that phone call, so I have no clue what you are talking about.



Er... But past votes on articles of impeachment have always included some members of the president's party. Except this one. The only people who voted for it were Democrats. Again. I'm talking about the House decision to impeach. Yeah, Romney's vote in the Senate was "special" all on it's own. But again, it had no actual effect on the outcome, he knew that, and was basically tossing in his own personal protest against Trump in there.



Huh? I'm not sure what Trump's "support" has to do with this. The House went forward, not because they were doing their job, but because they wanted to try to hurt Trump for the 2020 election. Period. Um... They failed. Specatcularly. When the guy you're impeaching's popularity jumps 5 points during the trial? Not a good sign.



Um... Yeah. He used (abused) power he was granted by his office. You know, Presidents get to directly speak with and negotiate with foreign powers. He's the only person granted that sole power in our government (obviously, he delegates this for most things). Similarly, the House is the only body empowered to impeach the president, right? So you can "abuse" that power for a political end, right? Same deal. The president can ask for a favor from a foreign power, because he's empowered to do so. And if he does it in a way that helps him out politicaly, one could argue that's an abuse of power (that's exactly the argument the House made, btw). Can't the same argument be made for the power of impeachment? If the House is doing it purely to try to help their party's chances in the next election, then it would also be an abuse of power.



Huh? You are confused. The impeachment of Trump had nothing to do with the Mueller investigation. It had to do with a phone call he made the summer after the investigation was concluded in which he asked the president of Ukraine to investigate possible corruption by the Bidens with regards to payoffs from an oil and gas company to Biden's son, in return for favorable actions by the VP to help out said company (like asking the previous president to fire a prosecutor who was investigating the company Biden's son was collecting a $1 Million dollar per year salary from).

The whole thing really hinges on whether you agree that the behavior by Biden was suspicious and possibly corrupt, and then whether you thought how Trump handled it was correct or not. That's it. I'm not sure why you keep talking about Mueller.

Edited, Feb 26th 2020 2:14pm by gbaji

Spoiler

Qbaji wrote:

No. That was a bad decision as well. And, for those who have been around this forum long enough, one that I thought was wrong at the time, and have consistently disagreed with since. I've been consistent in my opinion on impeachment. Can you say the same?

Yes, I was against the thought of impeachment at first, considering it Democrats upset about the election. I was on the side of Nancy Pelosi, but then facts happened. I accepted facts and didn't let political bias determine my opinion. Can you say the same?

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Huh? I'm talking about all the witnesses and evidence that they could have gone through the proper process of subpeona to obtain, but decided not to when collecting evidence in the House, but then cried about once the trial was in progress in the Senate. The way they did this made it obvious that they didn't actually want those witnesses and evidence, they just wanted the talking point about how they were blocked from getting it. Up to the point where one of the committee members actually filed for a subpeona, was granted it, the judge agreed to expedite the process and have an answer in a week, and Shiff withdrew the subpeona. Again. They didn't want those witnesse to actually testify. They wanted the appearance that they weren't allowed to.

It was a PR stunt from start to finish.

The Democrats did go through the proper process. The GOP was actively stalling the process. You can't say "go through the process" while actively in court saying "Stop them!" and then say "Why won't you continue?".

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Huh? Source for this claim? I followed this pretty closely and don't recall Trump every admitting to colluding with Ukraine. Er... And I thought it was the Russians. Or are you confused? There was no Mueller "trial", it was an investigation. And it had nothing to do with Trump's phone call (now a conversation is "collusion"?). The Mueller investigation was completed nearly a year before that phone call, so I have no clue what you are talking about.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Er... But past votes on articles of impeachment have always included some members of the president's party. Except this one. The only people who voted for it were Democrats. Again. I'm talking about the House decision to impeach. Yeah, Romney's vote in the Senate was "special" all on it's own. But again, it had no actual effect on the outcome, he knew that, and was basically tossing in his own personal protest against Trump in there.

You mean politicians in "purple" areas? Yea, partisan. Funny how you apply this to Romney, but do not see it with everyone else. The whole process is partisan by definition. Remember, the GOP ran against Trump (Never Trumper) more than the DNC, yet they all voted in favor of him.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Huh? I'm not sure what Trump's "support" has to do with this. The House went forward, not because they were doing their job, but because they wanted to try to hurt Trump for the 2020 election. Period. Um... They failed. Specatcularly. When the guy you're impeaching's popularity jumps 5 points during the trial? Not a good sign.

Gbaji previously wrote:

Shocking. You do get that they knew going in that there was never any chance of getting 67 senators to vote to remove Trump, right? So, knowing this, one might question why they went forward anyway. If you can't remove him, why bother? The only answer is that they just want to attack the president and erode support for him.

You cannot effectively "erode" support if you have a 30-40% floor. His support is unheard of. The only way to win is to gain support in a candidate. There was no political benefit in going through this trial with absolutely no chance of conviction. This is especially true given what happened to President Clinton. They were doing their job, because they valued the country more than their jobs. To be fair, some radicals were simply against President Trump.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Um... Yeah. He used (abused) power he was granted by his office. You know, Presidents get to directly speak with and negotiate with foreign powers. He's the only person granted that sole power in our government (obviously, he delegates this for most things). Similarly, the House is the only body empowered to impeach the president, right? So you can "abuse" that power for a political end, right? Same deal. The president can ask for a favor from a foreign power, because he's empowered to do so. And if he does it in a way that helps him out politicaly, one could argue that's an abuse of power (that's exactly the argument the House made, btw). Can't the same argument be made for the power of impeachment? If the House is doing it purely to try to help their party's chances in the next election, then it would also be an abuse of power.

The GAO disagrees with you. I literally just said the problem is not that he asked for assistance. It's the fact that pre-allocated government funds were withheld for a *personal* benefit. You support government employees using public funds for personal gains?

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Huh? You are confused. The impeachment of Trump had nothing to do with the Mueller investigation. It had to do with a phone call he made the summer after the investigation was concluded in which he asked the president of Ukraine to investigate possible corruption by the Bidens with regards to payoffs from an oil and gas company to Biden's son, in return for favorable actions by the VP to help out said company (like asking the previous president to fire a prosecutor who was investigating the company Biden's son was collecting a $1 Million dollar per year salary from).

The whole thing really hinges on whether you agree that the behavior by Biden was suspicious and possibly corrupt, and then whether you thought how Trump handled it was correct or not. That's it. I'm not sure why you keep talking about Mueller.

If the goal were to simply say "The President is impeached", then they would have done so after the Mueller investigation.