US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[benjipwns]

Wait, so you're out here demanding impeachment's doomed to fail but you refuse to impeach members of the Supreme Court? Who's the real hypocrite now? Huh?!?

[Nintex]

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.

"Mr. Sanders, some would say that you are a communist Marxist and you would completely the destroy the country and our economy. You are a communist are you not?"
"First, there is a big difference between the socialism that I fight for and the Marxism that the Republicans use to scare poor people into...."
"Sorry Senator Sanders your 10 seconds to respond is up. We'd like to remind all candidates to give short and clear Yes or No answers and don't talk too loud to not trigger our more sensitive viewers. We're moving on to our next candidate. Mr. Bloomberg, who's surprisingly surging in the polls."

"Mr Bloomberg, your ad with the dog during our break was really funny. How do you come up with such great ad ideas and do you think these ads are effective against the hate speech of other candidates, some of which are here today like Bernie?"
"Yes, I think they are very effective and I believe [...] and that's why we need strong and powerful leadership in America"
"Wow Mr. Bloomberg, tell us more. Please here is the microphone. Keep talking as long as you like dear sir  "

[benjipwns]

DES MOINES, Iowa — A small group of Democratic National Committee members has privately begun gauging support for a plan to potentially weaken Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign and head off a brokered convention.

In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party's national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested.

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1223375075078025216

Let's go boys. Trump acquittal on Brexit day.

These writers 

6 more votes

49/51 

[Cauliflower Of Love]

Romney redeemed!

spoiler (click to show/hide)

he's not

[close]

[Cauliflower Of Love]

Cowards

[Occam]

So, the US Republic died 17 minutes before Britains EU-exit.

[benjipwns]

Quick, Cindi, call C-SPAN on the Text Us line. "I'm from Text Us. Houston, Text Us and..."

[Nintex]

[benjipwns]

Let's go boys. Trump acquittal on Brexit day.

The acquittal vote is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday next week.

[Occam]

So was this nonsense?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.html

"An overwhelming number of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe the Senate should hear from relevant witnesses and obtain documents during President Trump’s impeachment trial. Striking new revelations about the president’s role in the Ukraine affair, as reported from an unpublished manuscript by John Bolton, underscore the need for his testimony and that of others.
Yet Republican members of the Senate have signaled that they intend to uphold Mr. Trump’s unprecedented decision to block all of this material.
But turns out they don’t get to make that choice — Chief Justice John Roberts does. This isn’t a matter of Democrats needing four “moderate” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses, as the Trump lawyers have been claiming. Rather, the impeachment rules, like all trial systems, put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority of the judge, in this case the chief justice.

Most critically, it would take a two-thirds vote — not a majority — of the Senate to overrule that. This week, Democrats can and should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas on his authority so that key witnesses of relevance like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney appear in the Senate, and the Senate should subpoena all relevant documents as well.
The Senate rules for impeachment date back to 1868 and have been in effect since that time. They specifically provide for the subpoenas of witnesses, going so far in Rule XXIV as to outline the specific language a subpoena must use — the “form of subpoena to be issued on the application of the managers of the impeachment, or of the party impeached, or of his counsel.”
As you can see, there is no “Senate vote” requirement whatsoever in the subpoena rule. A manager can seek it on his own.
The rules further empower the chief justice to enforce the subpoena rule. Rule V says: “The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.” The presiding officer, under our Constitution, is the chief justice. As such, the chief justice, as presiding officer, has the “power to make and issue, by himself,” subpoenas.
[...]"

[Nintex]

Let's go boys. Trump acquittal on Brexit day.

The acquittal vote is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday next week.

NBC News said it could be as early as tonight. Although the Republicans might not like the optics of acquitting Trump in the middle of the night.
Senators don't seem to be sure either. Everyone is very confused.

NBC news reporter says God Emperor Trump I apparently wants the vote tonight and the White House is pushing for it.
He's airborne to the Mar A Lago for this weekend's Super Bowl Party.

But some Republicans feel it's better to drag this on so the Democrats can't campaign in Iowa.

[benjipwns]

So was this nonsense?

How did two law professors write this and not realize that Senate rules cannot bind a future Senate? I haven't looked into the specifics of this particular one but they changed all kinds of rules during the Clinton impeachment to skip a bunch of worthless process and I'm sure they have for this one, and it's simply on a one-time basis for this specific trial. It's not permanently changing the rules.

Roberts may simply be choosing to go with the majority as well. If they won't subpoena witnesses, he won't. Especially if the Senate isn't going to hear any. They didn't in the Clinton impeachment because they already knew what the vote would be.

[Nintex]

NBC News: "Have the Democrats used their last arrow against this President"