The Impeachment Thread

[Jaguar]

Do you have something proving he doesn't have those assets?

Do you have a balance sheet, yes or no? No.

 

[Maou]

Do you have a balance sheet, yes or no? No.

No, why would I? I want you to define what you mean by billionaire. I am referring to both assets, cash on hand etc. Are you claiming he doesn't meet that criteria, or are you saying he is poor? If you want to argue he doesn't meet the criteria, because of lack of assets and proof etc. I can give you that, and we do not know. But if you argue he is actually poor. Then I will respond to that in the next post.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Btw what is really the point of this thread now ?

 

[Maou]

Btw what is really the point of this thread now ?

For the next round in circus politics. I bet they will impeach him again.

 

[anticlimatic]

You're wasting your time. Did you really expect things to be different this time around?

Of course not. But it felt good to say.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Enough with the posturing and lectures, considering you don't do a damn thing to the people who start it every time, just because you're in the same dirty bed with them politically.

That must be what's called by that infamous, orange fella: a "Swamp Rat."

 

[Hermit of the Forest]

Thread closed for a cool down period.

 

[Hermit of the Forest]

Thread reopened for respectful, courteous discourse.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Seems like someone should post this. For all the people who were arguing that Pelosi & co. should have sued to enforce the subpoenas they ordered (and the fact that they didn't somehow "proved" Trump was innocent? or something?).

Court Rules Congress Cannot Sue to Force Executive Branch Officials to Testify

On Mr. Trump’s instructions, Mr. McGahn defied a House subpoena seeking to force him to testify about Mr. Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia investigation. The House sued him, seeking a judicial order that he show up to testify, and won in district court in November.

But two of the three appeals court judges ruled on Friday that the Constitution gave the House no standing to file any such lawsuit in what they characterized as a political dispute with the executive branch. If their decision stands, its reasoning would shut the door to judicial recourse whenever a president directs a subordinate not to cooperate with congressional oversight investigations.

[.....]

Judge Griffith said that Congress had political tools to induce presidents to negotiate and compromise in disputes over oversight demands for information about the government — like withholding appropriations or derailing the president’s legislative agenda — and that courts should not be involved.

“The absence of a judicial remedy doesn’t render Congress powerless,” he wrote, adding, “Congress can wield these political weapons without dragging judges into the fray.”​

I'm not sure "withholding appropriations or derailing the president's legislative agenda" would really ever be an effective enough incentive, but that's the only recourse available to get a witness to testify if the president orders them not to. But the purpose in posting it here:

The ruling deflates a primary argument used by Mr. Trump’s defense team to question the legitimacy of the impeachment process. His lawyers insisted that the House should have pursued all of its legal avenues to secure testimony rather than charging the president with obstruction of Congress. But even as the impeachment trial unfolded, the Justice Department was arguing in the McGahn case that such lawsuits were invalid and, ultimately, the court adopted that reasoning.​

This^ was the only thing in Trump's defense that even remotely held any validity. The only thing left is all the ad hominems thrown about partisan motivations to deflect and distract from what the charges were (and for which they never even bothered trying to present an effective rebuttal).

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Bump

 

[ygolo]

OK. So, do you think the house will bring charges that are more possibility of conviction than last time?

It is political impeachment as all of them are.

Can Trump be charged with inciting a riot? Legal bar is high

Opinion | Democrats Are Pursuing the Wrong Impeachment Charges Against President Trump - POLITICO

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

They may not have enough dynamite to do this properly. (Not off topic, a visual metaphor)

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yeah, that is really proper metaphor.

 

[Totenkindly]

We done blowed up that whale REEEEEEEEAL good....!

OK. So, do you think the house will bring charges that are more possibility of conviction than last time?

It is political impeachment as all of them are.

Can Trump be charged with inciting a riot? Legal bar is high

Opinion | Democrats Are Pursuing the Wrong Impeachment Charges Against President Trump - POLITICO

I read the Politico article before and it makes some good points.

Despite McConnell's comments, I still think the Senate is going to welsh on any kind of conviction. It's crazy to me, because what can anyone ever be convicted for if not this? Technically building a case on concrete indisputable facts is more likely to succeed IMO plus makes the case far clearer, but in the end it might not much matter.

I think the main concern is (1) doing SOMETHING rather than nothing, as at least it shows an attempt to slap down such behavior in the future and (2) preventing him from running in 2024, as this four years was disastrous and he never learns from his failures, he continues to double-down and ratchet up the vindictiveness.

I have lots of feels beyond that in terms of what I would like to see, but I've gotten used to living in disappointing times.

 

[Stigmata]

I read the Politico article before and it makes some good points.

Despite McConnell's comments, I still think the Senate is going to welsh on any kind of conviction. It's crazy to me, because what can anyone ever be convicted for if not this? Technically building a case on concrete indisputable facts is more likely to succeed IMO plus makes the case far clearer, but in the end it might not much matter.

I was thinking the exact same thing. If this isn't the most clear example of when to invoke the 25th amendment and/or impeachment, I'm scared to see what actually would be. The spirit of those laws never probably accounted for such heavy degree of partisanship, with the mindset being that impeachment is such an indictment on not only the particular president, but their entire party, (no impeachment has never not had some kinda party blowback as a result. Gore actually blamed his election loss to Bush on prinarily on Clinton's impeachment) and therefore politicians are afraid of the fallout that comes with pressing the proverbial red button on "their" guy.

 

[ceecee]

Republicans don’t want unity. They want impunity. They'll be out doing the bothsideisms, we need to heal, don't hammer us into the ground now but we will certainly do that to you in the future. Fuck them.

 

[Totenkindly]

Republicans don’t want unity. They want impunity. They'll be out doing the bothsideisms, we need to heal, don't hammer us into the ground now but we will certainly do that to you in the future. Fuck them.

Just had this same conversation independently with my eldest, we both arrived at the same place.

Except sadly for him, this is all he has ever known (he's only 25)... he will sometimes ask me questions about past presidencies and political atmospheres, since I've seen a few more than him... I can recall back into the late 70's. I mean, there was always bs going on, but this is like one party in total meltdown and taking everyone with them. There is no real operating in good faith anymore.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Republicans don’t want unity. They want impunity. They'll be out doing the bothsideisms, we need to heal, don't hammer us into the ground now but we will certainly do that to you in the future. Fuck them.

Uniting under "insurrection and/or attempted coups are bad and require accountability" is also a form of unity. It's so disgustingly fucked up (and 100% on brand for them) to think unity is about everyone meeting on their own little delusional slice of fantasy.

 

[ygolo]

So the article of impeachment will is "Incitement to insurrection".

Keep in mind that this only needs to meet political standards of impeachment, not the legal standards.

Also, I believe, the 30 or so republicans who would vote against him in an anonymously counted vote could possibly just be absent, because only 2/3 of those present need to vote.

What are the chances?

 

[Jaguar]

Matt Gaetz thinks the Left are "worse."

Oh, and apparently there's the "Biden Crime Family":

Both of those videos are from today. I cannot stand that guy.