President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

JRant · 01-02-2020 03:00PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Thank you for illustrating my point beautifully. Leftists cultivate echo chambers by insisting that they are right and ignoring all views to the contrary and this results in the faceplants which I refer to like the Trump-Muller collusion nonsense and now the Trump "solicited the interference of a foreign government in the 2020 United States Presidential election" palava which was equally as absurd and had about as much evidence to support it, ie: none.

Find this rather laughable, all this whining about not having witnesses when the democrats refused to allow republicans to call any during the congressional hearings. They walked on their political opposition every chance they could, making the process as difficult as they could for them, and then are shocked when they are not accommodated to all they wants and desires. Zero self awareness.

Had they remotely made the case that witnesses were warranted, they'd have got them, but they didn't.

https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1223333796432445440

Just on the comments by Schiff, wasn't there a recent ruling by SCOTUS in the Nixon case just on this very matter. An overall majority rules that the Senate has the sole power to deal with an impeachment as they see fit. If I remember correctly, Nixon argued he deserved a hearing in the Senate after being removed from the bench but the Court ruled otherwise.

abff · 01-02-2020 03:21PM

Bottom line is that Trump is an absolute disgrace and the Republican Party has become a disgrace by closing ranks to protect him.

Outlaw Pete · 01-02-2020 03:40PM

JRant wrote: »

Just on the comments by Schiff, wasn't there a recent ruling by SCOTUS in the Nixon case just on this very matter. An overall majority rules that the Senate has the sole power to deal with an impeachment as they see fit. If I remember correctly, Nixon argued he deserved a hearing in the Senate after being removed from the bench but the Court ruled otherwise.

Schiff was incorrectly parsing Dershowitz there but with regards to the SCOTUS and impeachment trials, there was a lot of citing recently of a 'Walter Nixon vs the United States', you could be thinking of that. He was a judge who was impeached in the late 80's and then sued saying he did not get a fair trial. The Chief Justice at the time determined that it essentially wasn't the business of the SCOTUS and dismissed the case.

There was a lot of discussion about it at the time apparently, with some members of the SCOTUS saying that despite the ruling, they still how and ever could foresee a situation where their interference would be appropriate and I have to agree with them, as what if the democrats held the Senate majority right now? They would surely remove Trump even though there is little or no evidence of what they allege and so while I do think the Senate should determine the rules of impeachments, there has to be some kind of layer of protection from a corrupt Senate majority, should that ever come to pass and I think right now, given the actions of democrats, that's more plausible today than ever before.

Boggles · 01-02-2020 04:49PM

Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.

I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation

- Marco Rubio

Absolutely extraordinary horséshít.

Outlaw Pete · 01-02-2020 06:25PM

Really, so you think Bill Clinton should have been removed from office?

woohoo!!! · 01-02-2020 08:09PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Really, so you think Bill Clinton should have been removed from office?

I think that both have similarities and that a censure is warranted. I don't think the GOP are in the mood to do anything but acquit fully and yesterday's vote tells the numbers.

Igotadose · 01-02-2020 08:11PM

Clinton apologized after the impeachment verdict.

Hmm... what will Trump do....

Edgware · 01-02-2020 08:19PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Really, so you think Bill Clinton should have been removed from office?

He should have been removed from Monica's mouth

Edgware · 01-02-2020 08:20PM

Boggles wrote: »

- Marco Rubio

Absolutely extraordinary horséshít.

4 more years. 4 more years!

Boggles · 01-02-2020 08:59PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Really, so you think Bill Clinton should have been removed from office?

Yes.

Cody montana · 01-02-2020 09:00PM

Igotadose wrote: »

Clinton apologized after the impeachment verdict.

Hmm... what will Trump do....

Whine even more.

notobtuse · 02-02-2020 05:02PM

Igotadose wrote: »

Clinton apologized after the impeachment verdict.

Hmm... what will Trump do....

Have Kool And The Gang piped over the White House intercom system?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M

RobbingBandit · 02-02-2020 10:04PM

Trump more of a Fortunate Son man if you ask me

Edgware · 02-02-2020 11:15PM

4 more years 4 more years.
F the begrudgers

Manic Moran · 03-02-2020 04:59AM

Igotadose wrote: »

2/3 both houses and Constitutional amendments are in play. Now isn't that an exciting thought? Repeal the 2d? Health care in the Constitution? All forms of medical care as basic human right? Things like that.

Several issues here.

Firstly, you are assuming that a vote for a Democrat automatically will presume a vote in favour of repealing the 2nd, or an affirmative right to healthcare. This is assuredly not true: Many of the Democrats who are winning the swing districts are gun-toting blue dogs who have more moderate views on things. Compare the map of Virginia's State House elections by district and see how many voted 'blue' a couple of months ago and how many also voted 'we will not comply with gun control' within a few months of each other.

Secondly, the chances of an affirmative right such as the right to healthcare being in the Constitution is pretty slim. I believe it would be the only such right, it's not the way the US does things. The US Constitution gives negative rights: It says what the Federal Government cannot do with respect to private citizens, not what it must do. It may not pass laws to restrict speech (1st Amendment), it may not infringe the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment). It may not deny the right to vote to people over 18 due to age (26th A), Gender (19th) or color (15th) . It may not quarter soldiers in private houses (3rd A), it may not set excessive bail or unusual punishments (8th A), and so on. That's right, the Constitution does not even give Americans the right to vote. If you want to make an amendment saying "The care of a healthy population being vital to a successful state, the right of the People to avail of healthcare shall not be infringed", that's fine... but it also means that the Federal Government need not provide it.

Should sufficient votes be found in Congress, a Constitutional amendment will not be necessary to provide universal healthcare anyway. But of course, it could be undone by a future Congress. Such is life.

Finally, how on Earth do you see 66 Senators voting to approve of such things? What solid Red states are likely to flip? That's 33 of 50 States. 44 of whom, for example, have a Right to Arms in their Constitutions. Of the 8 Republican senators considered "unsafe", most of them are in Red-leaning areas anyway. Even if every single one of them flipped, which is highly unlikely (And there's at least one D in a red-leaning area right now too), that would not make 66.

Igotadose · 03-02-2020 09:47AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Several issues here.

Firstly, you are assuming that a vote for a Democrat automatically will presume a vote in favour of repealing the 2nd, or an affirmative right to healthcare. This is assuredly not true: Many of the Democrats who are winning the swing districts are gun-toting blue dogs who have more moderate views on things. Compare the map of Virginia's State House elections by district and see how many voted 'blue' a couple of months ago and how many also voted 'we will not comply with gun control' within a few months of each other.

Nor has any party had the opportunity in recent memory. 2/3 majority, hyperpartisanship being the norm, playing to 'the base'... Sure, plenty of Democratic legislators and Republican legislators are on different sides of the fences you mention, but in the case I hypothesize about, they'd have an opportunity. Scary, isn't it?

Turn it around - imagine one-party majorities in each state big enough to amend the Constitution. Same could happen.

Secondly, the chances of an affirmative right such as the right to healthcare being in the Constitution is pretty slim. I believe it would be the only such right, it's not the way the US does things. The US Constitution gives negative rights: It says what the Federal Government cannot do with respect to private citizens, not what it must do. It may not pass laws to restrict speech (1st Amendment), it may not infringe the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment). It may not deny the right to vote to people over 18 due to age (26th A), Gender (19th) or color (15th) . It may not quarter soldiers in private houses (3rd A), it may not set excessive bail or unusual punishments (8th A), and so on. That's right, the Constitution does not even give Americans the right to vote. If you want to make an amendment saying "The care of a healthy population being vital to a successful state, the right of the People to avail of healthcare shall not be infringed", that's fine... but it also means that the Federal Government need not provide it.

Let's be clear - those are *amendments* you're talking about, and certainly the Bill of Rights, the 1st ten amendments, restricts what the federal government can do. Things like the 19th amendment (women's vote) say "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]"

showing that the Constitution can be modified to grant *additional* powers to the Federal Government.

Likewise, the 16th amendment allows the Federal government to collect taxes.

So, your argument is true for most of the amendments, especially the first 10, but amendments can do anything, like enshrine health care.

Should sufficient votes be found in Congress, a Constitutional amendment will not be necessary to provide universal healthcare anyway. But of course, it could be undone by a future Congress. Such is life.

Au contraire, an amendment like "Congress shall ensure health care for all Americans at no financial cost to them" can be written. Admittedly, that's dreadful wording.

Finally, how on Earth do you see 66 Senators voting to approve of such things?

That's why I started with, imagine 2/3 majority in both houses. The opportunity would then be there. Senators routinely ignore their constituents - cf. the recent 'no witness' vote.

What solid Red states are likely to flip? That's 33 of 50 States. 44 of whom, for example, have a Right to Arms in their Constitutions. Of the 8 Republican senators considered "unsafe", most of them are in Red-leaning areas anyway. Even if every single one of them flipped, which is highly unlikely (And there's at least one D in a red-leaning area right now too), that would not make 66.

Once the 2d amendment is repealed, the litigation begins at the state level.

As for how many Senators end up GOP after the 2020 election, in a normal functioning US government, I'd say the number might be fewer than the Democrats. The US hasn't had a normal government or predictable politics in a great while, and there's no discourse anymore just feints, lies and fighting. US politics and the US body politic are broken, irreparably in my view, one of many reasons we moved to Ireland permanently.

Outlaw Pete · 03-02-2020 10:07PM

Ah here, Schiff's lost it. In a hail mary attempt at convincing the Senate to convict he suggests if they don't Trump could give Alaska to the Russians!

https://twitter.com/PetiteNicoco/status/1224434320103759873

weisses · 03-02-2020 10:09PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here, Schiff's lost it. In a hail mary attempt at convincing the Senate to convict he suggests if they don't Trump could give Alaska to the Russians!

https://twitter.com/PetiteNicoco/status/1224434320103759873

Could you imagine having a president cancelling an official state visit because Denmark wouldn't sell Greenland to the US ....

Outlaw Pete · 03-02-2020 10:34PM

Pathetic attempt at deflection :P

FreeThePants · 03-02-2020 10:39PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Pathetic attempt at deflection :P

That's all that most of your posts in this thread appear to be?

Timberrrrrrrr · 03-02-2020 10:39PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Pathetic attempt at deflection :P

But true!

03-02-2020 10:39PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here, Schiff's lost it. In a hail mary attempt at convincing the Senate to convict he suggests if they don't Trump could give Alaska to the Russians!

https://twitter.com/PetiteNicoco/status/1224434320103759873

You might want to listen to that again.

abff · 03-02-2020 11:55PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here, Schiff's lost it. In a hail mary attempt at convincing the Senate to convict he suggests if they don't Trump could give Alaska to the Russians!

https://twitter.com/PetiteNicoco/status/1224434320103759873

Schiff is just pointing out the absurdity of Dershowitz’s argument that the president is to all intents and purposes above the law apart from very specific exceptions.

However, that doesn’t prevent Trump’s supporters from quoting part of his statement out of context and deliberately misrepresenting it as a serious suggestion.

Unfortunately that’s what we’ve been dealing with for the last few years and it’s only going to get worse until that miserable excuse for a human being is no longer in office.

ebbsy · 04-02-2020 11:25AM

Democrats in total chaos with the Iowa vote - full steam ahead for the #Trumptrain

Hande hoche! · 04-02-2020 11:31AM

Between the Iowa debacle and the state of the Union address, the acquittal vote will be just one of the week's noted events.
Strange turn of events.

ebbsy · 04-02-2020 11:31AM

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Between the Iowa debacle and the state of the Union address, the acquittal vote will be just one of the week's noted events.
Strange turn of events.

True bud

duploelabs · 04-02-2020 11:37AM

ebbsy wrote: »

Democrats in total chaos with the Iowa vote - full steam ahead for the #Trumptrain

The fact that you're using a hashtag on forum post highlights the idiocy of a trump supporter

ebbsy · 04-02-2020 11:41AM

They are probably trying to pork Sanders again - only this time they have been caught with their hands in the till.

And Trump will grab this with both hands.

#4moreyearsandthenhisson

Outlaw Pete · 04-02-2020 11:43AM

abff wrote: »

Schiff is just pointing out the absurdity of Dershowitz’s argument that the president is to all intents and purposes above the law apart from very specific exceptions.

However, that doesn’t prevent Trump’s supporters from quoting part of his statement out of context and deliberately misrepresenting it as a serious suggestion.

Unfortunately that’s what we’ve been dealing with for the last few years and it’s only going to get worse until that miserable excuse for a human being is no longer in office.

LMAO! You complain about Trump supporters deliberately misrepresenting Schiff ... and then suggest that Dershowitz’s argument would excuse Trump giving Alaska to the Russians. You couldn't make it up. :P

Anyway, Alan has responded to Schiff deliberately misrepresenting him with the following WSJ article:

Democrats Are Lying About My Argument

The main thrust of my hourlong opening presentation was that a president could be impeached if he committed crimes or criminal-like behavior, regardless of whether his claimed motive was the public interest. I made this self-evident point in response to arguments by House impeachment managers that mixed motives could turn innocent conduct into a crime, and that a motive to help one’s re-election could be corrupt. I never suggested that if a politician believed that his re-election was in the public interest, that would excuse criminal or impeachable conduct.

Why the mendacious distortions? Because my arguments resonated with some senators. I could see their reactions while I was speaking. Several came to me at the end of the session to express agreement. Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma said publicly: “I agree with Alan Dershowitz—a liberal Democrat—who explained so well that more witnesses won’t change the fact that President Trump did not commit a crime or an impeachable offense.”

The distortion of my view into a justification for any and all presidential actions could create a dangerous precedent. The Senate vote to acquit may be taken as a confirmation that a president can do whatever he wants in pursuit of re-election—even commit serious crimes—if he thinks it’s in the public interest. That’s a nonsensical view, and it isn’t what I said or believe. Nor is it the precedent the senators who vote for acquittal intend to establish.

Timberrrrrrrr · 04-02-2020 12:09PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

LMAO! You complain about Trump supporters deliberately misrepresenting Schiff and then claim Schiff was just pointing out the absurdity of Dershowitz’s argument which (according to him) would excuse Trump giving Alaska to the Russians :P

Alan responds here to Schiff deliberately misrepresenting him:

What's your thoughts on Trumps disgraceful behaviour during the national anthem?

President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Comments