The Impeachment Thread

[Jaguar]

All I am saying, is that perhaps he said all that to publicly distance himself from the backlash that affects Trump. Trump might be perfectly aware he either doesn't mean it, or respects his opinion. Either way, thats all it is.

What I mean about people throwing Trump under the bus, is those trying to score brownie points with the Democrats by leaking information and shit talking Trump.

Howard? Distance himself from backlash? lol. Honey, he lives for backlash and has for decades. He's made millions doing it. You're batting zero.

 

[ceecee]

Let me ask you this, if Trump was in cahoots with the Plutocracy, what does he stand to gain running for president? You cannot really say money, because he made more money before he ran for president, and he doesn't even take his presidential pay. If you claim he did it to help his Plutocratic friends, why would he do it in the public eye, when he can equally influence from the shadows? Apart from the "tax cuts" somehow benefitting the rich more seems far fetched to call that "helping the rich" when the unemployment rates have been the lowest and years, and wages are going up. Even for me personally. Not to mention the Fed just collected record taxes, due to more spending in the economy. So where is his connection? What does he gain for exposing him, his family, and his followers to death threats, slander, assault, etc? All answers the media, the Democrats, and GOP figureheads accusations are flat and weak, because they know he is winning, and there is nothing they can do about it. Because some semblance of our Republic still exists enough to stop the Plutocrats. And that absolutely pisses them off.

Trump is allegedly a billionaire, likely a millionaire. He has a very specific interest in protecting and continuing at least to be a millionaire and to protect the interests of other millionaires. He has and will continue to back policy that does exactly that. Let's go look at what plutocracy actually means.

plu·toc·ra·cy
/plo͞oˈtäkrəsē/

noun
government by the wealthy.
"the attack on the Bank of England was a gesture against the very symbol of plutocracy"

a country or society governed by the wealthy.
plural noun: plutocracies
"no one can accept public policies which turn a democracy into a plutocracy"

an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.
"officials were drawn from the new plutocracy"

Do you actually think the wealthy ever say -I have enough money? Of course not. They create foundations and non-profits, whch is how Bill Gates has more money now than he had before he retired. Such as the now defunct Trump charities closed by the courts and fined for fraud.

Donald Trump pays $2 million to end Trump Foundation saga, lawsuit

These are not visionaries and they can't bring people together. They're in it for themselves and the people that will facilitate more power, which equals more wealth. But it sounds to me like you have ignored everything anyone who has known Trump for years says and they all say the same things.

You may want to fact check that record tax haul claim.

Did the U.S. have a record tax haul after Trump tax cuts spurred economic growth? | PunditFact

 

[Jaguar]

He might even be upside down - liabilities vs assets.

 

[highlander]

Howard is one of his closest personal friends and has been for decades. He knows him well. Too well, probably. I don't know what this "throw Trump under the bus" nonsense is about, it doesn't even apply in this situation. There's nothing wrong with their friendship, so I hope you're not suggesting anything negative on Howard's end.

I thought Howard Stern supported Hilary

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I thought Howard Stern supported Hilary

That was Howard Aft. People often get them confused.

 

[highlander]

That was Howard Aft. People often get them confused.

I saw part of an interview where he talked about his admiration of her.

Also, there was this

Howard Stern: “Nobody Wanted Hillary To Win More Than Donald Trump” – The Forward

 

[Nicodemus]

Is obstructing Congress the same thing as obstructing justice? I thought the judiciary branch had to get involved for the later.

No and no. But here is why obstruction of Congress should interest even someone like you:

Suppose what Democrats have accused Trump of were true (abuse of power or bribery to smear a political opponent in order to increase his chances to win the next presidential election), suppose he really did freeze military aid to Ukraine to coerce the Ukrainian government to manufacture dirt on Biden, would it not be important to provide Congress with the means to investigate such actions and hold the president accountable?

For if a president can (ab)use his office to coerce foreign interference in US elections, he can, given US power overseas, virtually buy himself re-election. Would that not, for all intents and purposes, make him a dictator?

Now, the Founding Fathers, rather liking the democracy they had set up, thought that if a president were to undertake such actions, he would need to be checked. That is what impeachment is for. That is why the Constitution gives Congress the 'sole power' of impeachment (the House to impeach, the Senate to try impeachments).

What Trump has done, whether guilty or not, is to deny the House the means to investigate his actions. Disobeying the Constitution, he pretends and has declared categorically that the House has no authority to investigate his actions. Had not some former and current officials from the administration defied his order to keep quiet, there would have been no witnesses, no documents, no evidence - except for what became public through other channels. In effect, he would have shielded himself from accountability. He could go on coercing foreign interference and buy himself another term.

It is due to this cover-up that the evidence presented in the hearings, damning as it was, was not outright 'outlandish' (the GOP House counsel's bizarre standard for bad conduct).

Of course, the House could have fought the administration in court to force the testimony of witnesses and the production of documents; but that would have taken about a year. During that time in court, Trump could have (and, let's be honest, would have) continued to solicit foreign interference to win re-election.

So whether or not you think Trump did something wrong regarding Ukraine, he definitely violates the Constitution and threatens US democracy itself by obstructing Congress. Pretty bad, considering he swore an oath specifically to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

 

[anticlimatic]

No and no. But here is why obstruction of Congress should interest even someone like you: Suppose what Democrats have accused Trump of were true (abuse of power or bribery to smear a political opponent in order to increase his chances to win the next presidential election), suppose he really did freeze military aid to Ukraine to coerce the Ukrainian government to manufacture dirt on Biden, would it not be important to provide Congress with the means to investigate such actions and hold the president accountable? For if a president can (ab)use his office to coerce foreign interference in US elections, he can, given US power overseas, virtually buy himself re-election. Would that not, for all intents and purposes, make him a dictator? Now, the Founding Fathers, rather liking the democracy they had set up, thought that if a president were to undertake such actions, he would need to be checked. That is what impeachment is for. That is why the Constitution gives Congress the 'sole power' of impeachment (the House to impeach, the Senate to try impeachments). What Trump has done, whether guilty or not, is to deny the House the means to investigate his actions. Disobeying the Constitution, he pretends and has declared categorically that the House has no authority to investigate his actions. Had not some former and current officials from the administration defied his order to keep quiet, there would have been no witnesses, no documents, no evidence - except for what became public through other channels. In effect, he would have shielded himself from accountability. He could go on coercing foreign interference and buy himself another term. It is due to this cover-up that the evidence presented in the hearings, damning as it was, was not outright 'outlandish' (the GOP House counsel's bizarre standard for bad conduct). Of course, the House could have fought the administration in court to force the testimony of witnesses and the production of documents; but that would have taken about a year. During that time in court, Trump could have (and, let's be honest, would have) continued to solicit foreign interference to win re-election. So whether or not you think Trump did something wrong regarding Ukraine, he definitely violates the Constitution and threatens US democracy itself by obstructing Congress. Pretty bad, considering he swore an oath specifically to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

So the president should have to do whatever congress alone decrees (convenient fantasy since that's the only branch democrats currently control), and if they don't want to do it the correct way by involving the judiciary branch, that's somehow Trumps fault.

Really solid case they have here. No wonder Trump is quaking in his boots.

 

[ceecee]

So the president should have to do whatever congress alone decrees (convenient fantasy since that's the only branch democrats currently control), and if they don't want to do it the correct way by involving the judiciary branch, that's somehow Trumps fault.

Really solid case they have here. No wonder Trump is quaking in his boots.

Clearly "presidential overreach" is only applicable to Dem presidents with a GOP majority congress.

 

[Jaguar]

I thought Howard Stern supported Hilary

I have no idea what he thinks of Hillary, all I know is he's been friends with Trump for years.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

So the president should have to do whatever congress alone decrees (convenient fantasy since that's the only branch democrats currently control), and if they don't want to do it the correct way by involving the judiciary branch, that's somehow Trumps fault.

Really solid case they have here. No wonder Trump is quaking in his boots.

No, just the bare minimum of cooperation with a legal investigation.

Surely you realize that it's not legal to simply ignore a subpoena. There's a huge, huge difference between doing "whatever the House decrees" and doing the bare minimum required by law. Republicans are setting a precedent in which a POTUS won't even need to do the bare minimum required by law.

This is what I wrote out last time. The evidence is damning, but supposing ALL the witnesses were wrong and there was no quid pro quo/bribe, the obstruction into that investigation (and the Mueller investigation) is plain. Any conservative who thinks that's okay - and ergo, necessarily thinks it's okay for Democrat president too - to repeatedly use the authority of his office to shut down ANY legal investigation into himself and order subordinates not to cooperate probably isn't thinking about it very hard.

 

[Nicodemus]

So the president should have to do whatever congress alone decrees (convenient fantasy since that's the only branch democrats currently control), and if they don't want to do it the correct way by involving the judiciary branch, that's somehow Trumps fault.

Really solid case they have here. No wonder Trump is quaking in his boots.

I see I was overestimating you... My fault. Perhaps it works better in your mind when you envision the scenario with Elizabeth Warren as president and Jim Jordan as speaker of the House.

 

[Jaguar]

I see I was overestimating you... My fault. Perhaps it works better in your mind when you envision the scenario with Elizabeth Warren as president and Jim Jordan as speaker of the House.

ARRRRGH!

 

[Nicodemus]

ARRRRGH!

Don't worry. A brave Republican patriot would probably assassinante her before she could sign any new tax law.

 

[Jaguar]

Don't worry. A brave Republican patriot would probably assassinante her before she could sign any new tax law.

You forgot Jordan. In my house we want to throw him off a cliff.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

If you don't find this ultimate banter, childish, but fucking hilarious. You have no sense of humor.

"This is weird. This is scary."

OK boomer

 

[Nicodemus]

You forgot Jordan. In my house we want to throw him off a cliff.

Praise be to your house. But Republicans in the mid-terms after a Warren win would surely pick an aggressive asshole to be their speaker, making Coach Jordan the perfect fit.

 

[anticlimatic]

I see I was overestimating you... My fault. Perhaps it works better in your mind when you envision the scenario with Elizabeth Warren as president and Jim Jordan as speaker of the House.

If it's any consolation, I was actually quite impressed that your thirteen year old debate method was (almost) able to posit an actual objective argument to an opponent that didn't involve condescension and name calling for (almost) an entire post.

 

[anticlimatic]

No, just the bare minimum of cooperation with a legal investigation. Surely you realize that it's not legal to simply ignore a subpoena. There's a huge, huge difference between doing "whatever the House decrees" and doing the bare minimum required by law. Republicans are setting a precedent in which a POTUS won't even need to do the bare minimum required by law. This is what I wrote out last time. The evidence is damning, but supposing ALL the witnesses were wrong and there was no quid pro quo/bribe, the obstruction into that investigation (and the Mueller investigation) is plain. Any conservative who thinks that's okay - and ergo, necessarily thinks it's okay for Democrat president too - to repeatedly use the authority of his office to shut down ANY legal investigation into himself and order subordinates not to cooperate probably isn't thinking about it very hard.

I'm not saying he is innocent, but completely delegitimizing their case by rushing it through is puzzling to me. Based on the evidence of how they are going about this, I don't think democrats give two figs about succeeding here- They're just pandering to their ravenously bloodthirsty base so they can stay in office regardless of what happens.

If trump is "literally the worst" and is as corrupt as his opponents have been saying for the last three years, how hard should finding something simple and legitimate to go after him be? For as weak as this impeachment case is, one might almost think that all the hyperventilating over his presidency was maybe mistaken after all.

 

[Nicodemus]

If it's any consolation, I was actually quite impressed that your thirteen year old debate method was (almost) able to posit an actual objective argument to an opponent that didn't involve condescension and name calling for (almost) an entire post.

For background, I had always assumed you were merely a habitual contrarian. Then, from your last couple of posts in the thread, I learned that you don't actually know anything about politics. So I tried to make it simple for you. Not simple enough, apparently, but there is a limit to my patience. So we're back to my not wasting too much time trying to argue with hopeless cases - what you read as condescension.