Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 74
Thanks Tree16Thanks

Thread: Trump Impeachment Vote Shot Down

  1. #21
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    43,787
    Thanks
    9082

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    If there is no hope at all of a 2/3 Senate consensus, absent clear and convincing evidence of presidential personal wrongdoing (either in a political or criminal sense), articles of impeachment are a waste of time and taxpayer money. Ryan should not have permitted the vote, except to make his own political statement, and I guess that's fair.

    I merely mean to argue that it's not necessary for the president to be a CRIMINAL to face removal from office. The Founders deliberately chose to make the decision entirely within Congress' hands, and not subject to judicial review. That means they get to decide what a "high crime or misdemeanor" is. Madison suggests in his writings that this is a criminal/political catch-all, an ultimate (though hard to acquire) check on anything the president fucks up.

    If Ryan wouldn’t have let these asshat DIM POLITICIANS have their moronic vote, he would have been excoriated on the floor, and in the MSM.

    The fact he let them make fools of themselves isn’t his fault.


    THE ABOVE COMMENTS ARE DIRECTED AT DIM POLITICIANS. IN NO WAY ARE THEY DIRECTED AT ANY PH POSTER.
    Thanks from Southern Dad

  2. #22
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    24,127
    Thanks
    15582

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    If Ryan wouldn’t have let these asshat DIM POLITICIANS have their moronic vote, he would have been excoriated on the floor, and in the MSM.

    The fact he let them make fools of themselves isn’t his fault.
    That's what I said, they want to make a pointless political statement, he has a right to make a separate political statement.

    As I also said, it's also a not-so-subtle reminder to the White House that the Speaker controls the President's fate, should he be guilty of something we don't know about yet.

  3. #23
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    14,532
    Thanks
    2368

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    That's what I said, they want to make a pointless political statement, he has a right to make a separate political statement.

    As I also said, it's also a not-so-subtle reminder to the White House that the Speaker controls the President's fate, should he be guilty of something we don't know about yet.
    It's a desperation move, it's obvious to some that this push to impeach Trump for evidence of "collusion" is not going to work.

    The reminder to Trump here should be that it does not matter what the facts Are, they will not stop.

  4. #24
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    43,787
    Thanks
    9082

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    That's what I said, they want to make a pointless political statement, he has a right to make a separate political statement.

    As I also said, it's also a not-so-subtle reminder to the White House that the Speaker controls the President's fate, should he be guilty of something we don't know about yet.

    Please quote my posts in their entirety. Your edit changed the meaning of my post and the easily confused staff may misenterpret my comments resulting in a thread ban.

    Thanks for your cooperation.

  5. #25
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    24,127
    Thanks
    15582

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    It's a desperation move, it's obvious to some that this push to impeach Trump for evidence of "collusion" is not going to work.

    The reminder to Trump here should be that it does not matter what the facts Are, they will not stop.
    It won't work yet, because there is no report from Mueller, or any congressional committee. Should there ever be one that specifically calls for impeachment, this gets a lot more realistic.

    And Trump needs not have engaged in "collusion" to be impeached. If, in Congress' judgment, he has presided over a campaign and administration that has repeatedly and avoidably appointed people to positions of power who had corrupt dealings with hostile foreign powers for which they've either testified to under oath or been convicted, that's plausibly cause for removal. It doesn't matter if he had no idea what they were up to --- Congress absolutely could set the standard that he had a responsibility to know.

    Similarly, if he has repeatedly encouraged his aides to lie under oath even though he himself is criminally blameless, in conjunction with his decision to politically pressure and possibly fire a criminal investigators who he felt got too close to his personal affairs, he could be justifiably removed.

    The Constitution offers a catch-all, designed to allow Congress to say "the president isn't a criminal, but he has so badly damaged or endangered the nation with his personal conduct that we have no choice but to appoint his running mate, who the voters also backed, into his place."

  6. #26
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    24,127
    Thanks
    15582

    From
    Kansas
    Personally I think that's an especially grave reading of the Constitution, "so badly damaged."

    As I said to start things off, other modern democracies consider it sufficient cause to drive the head of government out of office if a majority of the legislature decides they don't like that person anymore. In the UK system this is somewhat offset by the PM's unilateral authority to ask (and near-automatically receive) the monarch's dissolution of Parliament, but in that case they all have to run for election again anyway and the point is moot.

    Japan takes it one step further (though Abe has cornered political power) and just lets the PM get tossed on a flick of the wrist by the majority just because things aren't going all that well. Which is probably a step too far, and so long as Abe eventually gives up power, his new way of doing things is probably OK.

  7. #27
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    14,532
    Thanks
    2368

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    It won't work yet, because there is no report from Mueller, or any congressional committee. Should there ever be one that specifically calls for impeachment, this gets a lot more realistic.

    And Trump needs not have engaged in "collusion" to be impeached. If, in Congress' judgment, he has presided over a campaign and administration that has repeatedly and avoidably appointed people to positions of power who had corrupt dealings with hostile foreign powers for which they've either testified to under oath or been convicted, that's plausibly cause for removal. It doesn't matter if he had no idea what they were up to --- Congress absolutely could set the standard that he had a responsibility to know.

    Similarly, if he has repeatedly encouraged his aides to lie under oath even though he himself is criminally blameless, in conjunction with his decision to politically pressure and possibly fire a criminal investigators who he felt got too close to his personal affairs, he could be justifiably removed.

    The Constitution offers a catch-all, designed to allow Congress to say "the president isn't a criminal, but he has so badly damaged or endangered the nation with his personal conduct that we have no choice but to appoint his running mate, who the voters also backed, into his place."
    The biggest hurdle to overcome is that there's nothing that points to Trump.

    The closest thing to a crime is that Trump started engaging diplomatic relations instantly, but that is based on the word of someone being charged with lying to the FBI... Not the best start when your star witness is a perjury risk.

    Nobody was encouraged to lie under oath, the problem is that the FBI had the transcript and Flynn's memory did not match the TRANSCRIPT of the conversation, therefore he lied. Really think about this one because the best evidence of this case is an illegally obtained transcript.

    The ONLY case they could make on Trump is that he "obstructed justice," except the problem is that the only crime was when Flynn "lied" and Trump couldn't obstruct because his actions occurred before the crime.

    Finally, sounds like you are describing a vote of no confidence, the us does not have such a thing.

  8. #28
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    24,127
    Thanks
    15582

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    The biggest hurdle to overcome is that there's nothing that points to Trump.

    The closest thing to a crime is that Trump started engaging diplomatic relations instantly, but that is based on the word of someone being charged with lying to the FBI... Not the best start when your star witness is a perjury risk.

    Nobody was encouraged to lie under oath, the problem is that the FBI had the transcript and Flynn's memory did not match the TRANSCRIPT of the conversation, therefore he lied. Really think about this one because the best evidence of this case is an illegally obtained transcript.

    The ONLY case they could make on Trump is that he "obstructed justice," except the problem is that the only crime was when Flynn "lied" and Trump couldn't obstruct because his actions occurred before the crime.

    Finally, sounds like you are describing a vote of no confidence, the us does not have such a thing.
    If you believe that one conversation is all Mueller has on Flynn, you're far too deluded to be worth talking to.
    Thanks from OldGaffer

  9. #29
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    14,532
    Thanks
    2368

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    If you believe that one conversation is all Mueller has on Flynn, you're far too deluded to be worth talking to.
    That relates to Russia, yes. The real crime they have over him involves Turkey, not Russia. Just like manafort crime relates to Ukraine, Not Russia.

    If you think the leakiest investigation in world history could keep THAT secret, you're too desperate to destroy your country to be worth talking to.

  10. #30
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    24,127
    Thanks
    15582

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    That relates to Russia, yes. The real crime they have over him involves Turkey, not Russia. Just like manafort crime relates to Ukraine, Not Russia.

    If you think the leakiest investigation in world history could keep THAT secret, you're too desperate to destroy your country to be worth talking to.
    Mueller hasn't leaked anything. The various defense attorneys, politicians and other officials the probe must interact with to do its job are the people who leak, as always.

    You can't demonstrate that he has leaked or in any other way undermined the investigation, or you would supply such information up front.

    You want to waste time and obfuscate instead.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Impeachment vote today on House floor
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 6th December 2017, 05:33 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 15th June 2017, 12:34 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2nd April 2017, 09:10 AM
  4. Kucinich to Force Impeachment Vote on the House Floor
    By Inkslinger in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 30th September 2007, 01:10 PM
  5. Telluride impeachment vote reaps storm
    By conservative in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11th August 2007, 10:28 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed