US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[Occam]

After this, as long as a President's party holds the Senate, he or she is effectively unimpeachable and cannot be held accountable for any misconduct during his or her term in office.

[Himu]

Haven't been following. Guess the impeachment hearing didn't go over too well?

Some hysterical people somehow convinced themselves that a Republican Senate was going to toss their President out of office in an election year on the eve of the primary.

All because they don't want to vote for the Bloomberg/Amy For America ticket in November.

Wrong. We all expected this to happen.

Actually experiencing it happen is entirely different.

[shosta]

People scolding about what the Republican Senate was going to do are implicitly saying that the House shouldn't have impeached. That's crazy given what the president did.

[Occam]

Haven't been following. Guess the impeachment hearing didn't go over too well?

Some hysterical people somehow convinced themselves that a Republican Senate was going to toss their President out of office in an election year on the eve of the primary.

All because they don't want to vote for the Bloomberg/Amy For America ticket in November.

Wrong. We all expected this to happen.

Actually experiencing it happen is entirely different.

Specifically, the way it happened.

[Mandark]

I suspect Bernie wants Bloomberg on the debate stage. Taking some shots at him to his face > responding to a quarter billion dollars of paid advertising with some zingers on the stump.

[Mandark]

Trump has devalued corruption scandals the way Vince Russo devalued title switches.

[Himu]

CSPAN caller:

"I would rather choose his record over his character."

Please kill me.

"I vote no to witnesses because this impeachment is too divisive."

KILL ME.

[shosta]

What the...

They're not selling tickets to the debate? 

[Mandark]

and they said you could buy your way into the debate

[Tripon]

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1223342702022053889

[team filler]

CSPAN caller:

"I would rather choose his record over his character."

Please kill me.

"I vote no to witnesses because this impeachment is too divisive."

KILL ME.

tulsi warned us! 

[Himu]

CSPAN caller:

"I would rather choose his record over his character."

Please kill me.

"I vote no to witnesses because this impeachment is too divisive."

KILL ME.

tulsi warned us! 

Tulsi is a coward and not fit for leadership.

[shosta]

and they said you could buy your way into the debate

just made a donation to the DNC for a "chance to win a ticket"

[Himu]

Trump has devalued corruption scandals the way Vince Russo devalued title switches.

You really love wrestling analogies.

I'm just waiting for a swerve at this point.

[Occam]

People are also casually looking over the fact that the leader of Trump's legal team was directly involved in the scheme that led to the impeachment in the first place. No one even cares.

For those who weren't paying attention, White House council Pat Cipollone who is leading the President's defense in the Senate right now (and who has categorically denied all allegations) was right there in the Oval Office when Trump gave his illegal instructions, according to a new excerpt from Bolton's manuscript printed by the NYT today.

[Mandark]

and they said you could buy your way into the debate

just made a donation to the DNC for a "chance to win a ticket"

don't know what's better, dnc using gambling to give out tickets for the vegas debate, or you going for it

[Cauliflower Of Love]

"There's no need for witnesses".

[Himu]

Thanks for catching me up, y'all. I have trump shit on mute on twitter (as well as Star Wars shit, as an aside) so a lot of this missed me.

Yeah, it's pretty fucking bad. But i guess my cynical self expected it as there's no low the GOP won't hit to suck off a corporate stooge, especially when they're a republican president.

We've all been expecting it.

Experiencing it is a shock, though. Hearing the arguments defending it is insane.

[benjipwns]

After this, as long as a President's party holds the Senate, he or she is effectively unimpeachable and cannot be held accountable for any misconduct during his or her term in office.

After this?

No President has ever been impeached by a House held by his party.

[OnlyRegret]

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1223325410261377031

Shook

the contingency plan

[Himu]

Trump defense just now: "You've got a lot of evidence already"

but also Trump defense last week: "There's not enough evidence to convict."

WE

ARE

BEING

GASLIT

[shosta]

don't know what's better, dnc using gambling to give out tickets for the vegas debate, or you going for it

I'm just supporting my party! 

[benjipwns]

People scolding about what the Republican Senate was going to do are implicitly saying that the House shouldn't have impeached. That's crazy given what the president did.

I'll say it explicitly. They never should have impeached over this. And especially not with the timeline they used.

Of all the things in the world they chose a third hand account of a phone call that led to nothing, immediately pushed to impeach over it, then rushed it through the House just to sit on it for a month before finally handing it over to a Senate that was never going to vote to convict at the height of the Democrat's own primary campaign.

Impeachment should have started last Summer over the many other cases of relevance, like say anything in the Mueller Report, not THIS within days of Schiff's setting it up as the scandal he wanted to use because he was in the center of it.

Lastly, Mandark is not allowed to respond to this post.

/concern trolling

[benjipwns]

Remember when all the actual Democratic Party members and candidates kept whining about the debate rules and nothing changed. Then suddenly the surging to the nomination Bloomberg can't get into the debates because he refuses to build a grassroots donation network and they change the rules within a week of it being brought up.

[shosta]

[Himu]

I hate the word "surging" and how buzzwords are so repeated by the media. Fuck.

[OnlyRegret]

Lastly, Mandark is not allowed to respond to this post.

(digitally) murder him, coward

[shosta]

Impeachment should have started last Summer over the many other cases of relevance, like say anything in the Mueller Report

Didn't you spend the entirety of the Mueller investigation saying that it was stupid and nothing Trump had done was impeachable?

 

[Himu]

Trump defense: they have already given so much evidence, do we really need more? 

[Himu]

What in the FUCK is Sekulow arguing? Is he arguing for or against? What in the FUCK.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

.....


Does this guy think the house managers would be against having them come back up for testimony?



what the fuck is he doing?

[Cauliflower Of Love]

Oh, because you can't do it in a week!

[Himu]

"29 times they said the case was overwhelming"

"There is no doubt"

So basically no more evidence because they think there's no doubt?

lmao

[Mandark]

sincere tactical advice from a libertarian is probably worse than disingenuous tactical advice from a conservative

[benjipwns]

Didn't you spend the entirety of the Mueller investigation saying that it was stupid and nothing Trump had done was impeachable?

Doubt it, as I consider anything impeachable. I was more adamant that it wouldn't find any proof of Russian interference in the election, let alone treason. Then I became adamant about the lack of non-process crimes of the people supposedly being flipped to testify against Trump himself like Mike Flynn's whole thing.

Mueller literally told the House that he felt Trump could be tried for obstruction of justice and they said "damn, so nothing?" Then grasped immediately onto this Ukraine call before they even knew what was in it.

[Himu]

"Now they want YOU to do the work they failed to do"



There was new info since the impeachment was in the case.

This is so outrageous.

I am protesting after this.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

trump slipped this guy some pages he didn't write.

He looked confused himself reading that long list of names.

[shosta]

Doubt it, as I consider anything impeachable.

Oh, so this is impeachable. They just shouldn't impeach because...

[benjipwns]

Oh, so this is impeachable. They just shouldn't impeach because...

Because I'm assuming we're assuming the goal is conviction.

As I've stated multiple times, I'll all for opposition Houses spending all their time endlessly impeaching executive branch members over everything even remotely illegal.

I'd rather have held an impeachment vote I know is going to fail on Trump ordering the assassination in a friendly nation of a third nation's official than anything regarding the Joe Biden and the nation of Bangladesh.

[Himu]

SCHIFF. Please tear them down

[Mandark]

Because I'm assuming we're assuming the goal is conviction.

lol

[benjipwns]

Of all the things January 20, 2017-September 24, 2019, what is the top favorite to impeach over? Is it still this?

Mandark is allowed to respond to this post.

[shosta]

People scolding about what the Republican Senate was going to do are implicitly saying that the House shouldn't have impeached. That's crazy given what the president did.

I'll say it explicitly. They never should have impeached over this.

As I've stated multiple times, I'm all for opposition Houses spending all their time endlessly impeaching executive branch members over everything even remotely illegal.

I'm getting mixed signals here.

[shosta]

Of all the things January 20, 2017-September 24, 2019, what is the top favorite to impeach over? Is it still this?

Mandark is allowed to respond to this post.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the president can't assassinate the leaders of designated terrorist organizations? Congress has already given him this power.

[Mandark]

Didn't you spend the entirety of the Mueller investigation saying that it was stupid and nothing Trump had done was impeachable?

Doubt it, as I consider anything impeachable.

you said you couldn't even imagine a possible crime trump could have committed

[benjipwns]

I'm getting mixed signals here.

If you're suggesting that when this concludes next Wednesday the House is going to immediately bring a new set of charges. Or even the same exact set. Well, then I will admit I did not understand the plan and will not trust what the Democrats say publicly.

[Himu]

Exo, I highly suggest watching this if you watch anything from this "trial". Watch the entire video, it's the highlight argument of the entire deliberation.

[Mandark]

If you're suggesting that when this concludes next Wednesday the House is going to immediately bring a new set of charges. Or even the same exact set. Well, then I will admit I did not understand the plan and will not trust what the Democrats say publicly.

don't know what you're talking about or who you're talking to

[benjipwns]

Where in the Constitution does it say that the president can't assassinate the leaders of designated terrorist organizations? Congress has already given him this power.

Every place it doesn't say the President and the Congress has that power.

you said you couldn't even imagine a possible crime trump could have committed

Regarding election interference via Russia. I could foresee plenty of process crimes, especially after taking office. I'm not sure why it matters as both the Mueller statement and suggestion I made were of something after he took office. Thus making them far harder to dismiss. All of that said, it remains the House's hand to determine so my judgement on it is irrelevant to the impeachment. I just figure it's diminishing returns and you start with the best crimes first and then work your way down to the silliest stuff. (Or you start with a full slate of silly stuff.)

[shosta]

don't know what you're talking about or who you're talking to

He's talking to me. He's saying Congress picked the wrong horse.

If you're suggesting that when this concludes next Wednesday the House is going to immediately bring a new set of charges. Or even the same exact set. Well, then I will admit I did not understand the plan and will not trust what the Democrats say publicly.

Wait, let me get this straight. Out of:
A) Obstruction of justice over an investigation that ultimately didn't reveal that any crimes had been committed, especially not collusion
B) The assassination of Soleimani, the leader of a designated terrorist organization, in Iraq, a country which on paper agrees to let us drone strike terrorists, in maintenance of the American empire, a goal that both major parties generally support
C) The withholding of foreign aid from an ally at war in an attempt to get them to announce an investigation into his political opponent

Option A or B are the ones that give the highest probability of impeachment? Or are you saying that Option B is the one that bothers you the most?

[benjipwns]

Option A was literally what Bill Clinton was impeached for.

I would frame Option C as impeaching the President for the normal conduct of foreign policy, which is how you framed Option B.

I have to assume there have been far more crimes or constitutional violations committed by this Administration than these three instances by the way, the first two were just the main ones that came to mind.

[shosta]

I would frame Option C as impeaching the President for the normal conduct of foreign policy, which is how you framed Option B.

"Trump's conduct was normal"

[benjipwns]

I just think that to get a party to throw their own President out of office you need something either abnormal or an epic level of criminal. None of these three options were that. Combining them all might have been a superior option. It still wouldn't have gotten conviction but it would have certainly done more to reign in the Presidency.

[kingv]

Option A was literally what Bill Clinton was impeached for.

I would frame Option C as impeaching the President for the normal conduct of foreign policy, which is how you framed Option B.

I have to assume there have been far more crimes or constitutional violations committed by this Administration than these three instances by the way, the first two were just the main ones that came to mind.

Option C is only the “normal” conduct of foreign policy if you ignore that they broke the law in executing the foreign policy.

[benjipwns]

That's probably more normal than following the law.

[shosta]

[benjipwns]

The Clinton impeachment was an example of blowing the wad early too, had they skipped it and waited a few months they could have impeached him for continuing the War in Kosovo despite the House having voted to not support the police actions.

[Flannel Boy]

The Clinton impeachment was an example of blowing the wad early

 

[Occam]

Trump expands immigration ban: "People from Nigeria, Eritrea, Tanzania, Sudan, Kyrgyzstan and Myanmar will be banned from immigrating to the United States without a visa waiver as of Feb. 22, joining currently banned countries Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela."

[benjipwns]

Add the immigration ban as an Option D could you shosta.