Impeachment?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-9-19, 11:09am
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere

So getting back to impeachment, what do you think of the WH ordering people not to testify or cooperate, calling the proceedings a Kangaroo court etc?

I think the Democrats are screwing this thing up by not scheduling a vote. I know it's not a necessary component of impeachment but without a majority vote of authorization it comes off seeming like a collection of petulant fascists trying to impose their will. Of course it didn't help that some of them began talking impeachment before Trump even took office.

This foolishness might very well guarantee Trump a second term, and it will serve all of you right.
10-9-19, 12:32pm
gimmethesimplelife

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

I think the Democrats are screwing this thing up by not scheduling a vote. I know it's not a necessary component of impeachment but without a majority vote of authorization it comes off seeming like a collection of petulant fascists trying to impose their will. Of course it didn't help that some of them began talking impeachment before Trump even took office.

This foolishness might very well guarantee Trump a second term, and it will serve all of you right.

Came back to add - Alan as into the rule of law you are and how you have repeatedly auto-sided with US police even in the face of mountains of evidence damning them, I must say I'm surprised. May I ask why the free pass for Donald Trump when he's clearly broken the law? (Seeking the assistance of a foreign government to influence the outcome of an election in any way). Why is Trump in your mind not accountable to the rules of law? Rob
10-9-19, 12:35pm
gimmethesimplelife

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

I think the Democrats are screwing this thing up by not scheduling a vote. I know it's not a necessary component of impeachment but without a majority vote of authorization it comes off seeming like a collection of petulant fascists trying to impose their will. Of course it didn't help that some of them began talking impeachment before Trump even took office.

This foolishness might very well guarantee Trump a second term, and it will serve all of you right.

Realistically, and I'm far from alone in this, I doubt that there will be a second term. The Ukranian phone call sunk that, much as Bernie Sanders recent heart attack essentially sank his candidacy. Rob
10-9-19, 12:52pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Came back to add - Alan as into the rule of law you are and how you have repeatedly auto-sided with US police even in the face of mountains of evidence damning them, I must say I'm surprised. May I ask why the free pass for Donald Trump when he's clearly broken the law? (Seeking the assistance of a foreign government to influence the outcome of an election in any way). Why is Trump in your mind not accountable to the rules of law? Rob

I'm not giving him a free pass, I'm disappointed in your side because the democrats are acting like a mob. The very basis of democracy is mob rule, that's why we're a republic.
The House democrats are only interested in influencing people like you who are ok with mob rule. Who is President for any given term in immaterial if we allow our government to work this way.
10-9-19, 12:54pm
iris lilies

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Came back to add - Alan as into the rule of law you are and how you have repeatedly auto-sided with US police even in the face of mountains of evidence damning them, I must say I'm surprised. May I ask why the free pass for Donald Trump when he's clearly broken the law? (Seeking the assistance of a foreign government to influence the outcome of an election in any way). Why is Trump in your mind not accountable to the rules of law? Rob

What law did Trump break, Rob?
10-9-19, 1:14pm
gimmethesimplelife

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

I'm not giving him a free pass, I'm disappointed in your side because the democrats are acting like a mob. The very basis of democracy is mob rule, that's why we're a republic.
The House democrats are only interested in influencing people like you who are ok with mob rule. Who is President for any given term in immaterial if we allow our government to work this way.

Whoah....hold your horses, Sir. Mib rule? Please go back a few pages and read of my take regarding not impeaching Trump due to my concerns such would sink the economy and lead to widespread AI and automation, leading to who knows how many Americans hungry and forced into tent cities. Bae posted something about how Germany once faced a situation of economics vs. the most basic of human rights. I refer to the Holocaust of course. Bae's post and the pleadings of some Guatemalans I know who are legally in the country but who have been harrassed by US CBP regardless led me to change my mind. For awhile I was a lone 85006 holdout not screaming for impeachment. True story.

Point? I did indeed think for myself in spite of pressures not to do so. Surprise! Mob rule does not apply to me in this instance. Sorry. Rob
10-9-19, 1:17pm
gimmethesimplelife

Quote:

Originally Posted by iris lilies

What law did Trump break, Rob?

Seeking assistance from a foreign government to influence a US election in any way, shape, or form. In this case, seeking the assistance of the Ukranian President to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and son. Impeachable offense here any way you slice it. Rob
10-9-19, 3:34pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Mob rule does not apply to me in this instance. Sorry. Rob

Sure it does, every aspect of life you share here reflects as much. You just don't recognize it as such.
10-9-19, 3:47pm
JaneV2.0

Obstruction of justice, conspiring with our enemies to influence an election (hell, conspiring with anyone who will cooperate to influence an election)...Trump makes Nixon look like an amateur. Russia is running the show--from Trump shunning the G7, to holding up aid to Ukraine, to allowing Erdogan to slaughter our Allies in Syria, and probably some s*** I've forgot.

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress and he became the judge and jury." --Lindsey Graham, 1998
10-9-19, 4:19pm
gimmethesimplelife

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

Sure it does, every aspect of life you share here reflects as much. You just don't recognize it as such.

OK, Alan, I'll bite. How does taking a stance against the 85006 qualify as participating in mob rule? My take? This time I don't fit in nearly to the space in which you have pigeonholed me. Rob
10-9-19, 4:20pm
gimmethesimplelife

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

Obstruction of justice, conspiring with our enemies to influence an election (hell, conspiring with anyone who will cooperate to influence an election)...Trump makes Nixon look like an amateur. Russia is running the show--from Trump shunning the G7, to holding up aid to Ukraine, to allowing Erdogan to slaughter our Allies in Syria, and probably some s*** I've forgot.

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress and he became the judge and jurty." --Lindsey Graham, 1998

Thank You, Jane. I had forgotten about the obstruction of justice. Rob
10-9-19, 4:24pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

OK, Alan, I'll bite. How does taking a stance against the 85006 qualify as participating in mob rule?

Do you require proof or will an accusation of wrong doing suffice? Mobs don't require proof and so far, in all your odd rants, neither do you.
10-9-19, 4:55pm
JaneV2.0

The impeachment inquiry is underway, preliminary to a trial. Of course, with all the obstruction going on, it may take awhile. This is all being done in the manner prescribed in the Constitution, just as it was during Watergate. I don't remember all these objections from Republicans during Clinton's impeachment for lying about a sexual encounter.
10-9-19, 5:15pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

This is all being done in the manner prescribed in the Constitution, just as it was during Watergate.

The difference being this time there has been no floor vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry. There was a floor vote leading up to the Watergate inquiry and there was for the Clinton impeachment inquiry. The current approach seems to be crafted more to influence an upcoming election than make a concerted effort to remove a President for high crimes or misdemeanors.
10-9-19, 5:25pm
JaneV2.0

Congress certainly would vote in favor of the inquiry; no reason--that I can see--not to.

Trump is doing damage daily to his re-election chances, but Putin knows a good thing when he sees one. I'm sure he and his bots and troll farms and hackers will come through again.
10-9-19, 5:34pm
frugal-one

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

Do you require proof or will an accusation of wrong doing suffice? Mobs don't require proof and so far, in all your odd rants, neither do you.

The whistleblowers (note plural) have proof. Also, trump admitted to the world that he conspired with foreign governments to get dirt on Biden. He even (while being recorded on tv) asked China and Ukraine to get info on Biden. Again, where is your head?
10-9-19, 5:50pm
frugal-one

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Clean.

Absolutely nowhere.
10-9-19, 6:16pm
bae

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

The difference being this time there has been no floor vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry. There was a floor vote leading up to the Watergate inquiry and there was for the Clinton impeachment inquiry.

My understanding is that the US Constitution does not specify the procedures used by the House to investigate possible impeachment. The text seems to clearly indicate a vote *would* be required to move forward any articles of impeachment the House drafts to the Senate for a trial.

My further understanding is that the House's current rules allow committees to investigate things as they wish, without need for a full vote.

I believe that in the Nixon and Clinton area, the House hadn't delegated such powers to committees, but that those rules have changed since then.

Glancing at the news the past few days, it appears that the whole nation is putting the cart in front of the horse here, and trying to engage in the trial part of the process before we've even seen any articles of impeachment.
10-9-19, 6:46pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by bae

My further understanding is that the House's current rules allow committees to investigate things as they wish, without need for a full vote.

I believe that in the Nixon and Clinton area, the House hadn't delegated such powers to committees, but that those rules have changed since then.

That's my understanding as well. I believe they've even recently delegated subpoena power to committee's without the need for floor approval, eliminating several centuries of tradition designed to ensure all representatives of the people have a voice in this sort of thing. People are bothersome though, best to ignore them as much as possible. Small cabals working for their own interests seem to be the future role of governance .

Quote:

Glancing at the news the past few days, it appears that the whole nation is putting the cart in front of the horse here, and trying to engage in the trial part of the process before we've even seen any articles of impeachment.

The trial has been ongoing in the press since 2017 and there have been at least 3 formal requests in the house to initiate impeachment inquiries, one in 2017, one in 2018 and one in 2019, all based on nothing more than a desire to reverse the outcome of a particularly troublesome election.

The sad part of the whole thing is the vehemence with which a large part of our citizenry embrace this sort of thing, going so far as to treat anyone cautioning against self-inflicted wounds as if they were Ellen DeGeneres attending a football game with George Bush.
10-9-19, 6:48pm
gimmethesimplelife

Quote:

Originally Posted by frugal-one

The whistleblowers (note plural) have proof. Also, trump admitted to the world that he conspired with foreign governments to get dirt on Biden. He even (while being recorded on tv) asked China and Ukraine to get info on Biden. Again, where is your head?

I don't want to be a jerk here. Alan keeps this site up and running, and he is entitled to his opinion. That said, Thank You for your last sentence, Frugal One. Rob
10-9-19, 6:54pm
gimmethesimplelife

I will admit word of my change of heart (I now still with misgivings support impeachment) got around the neighborhood fast. SO is happy too, and I have made sure my impeachment outfit is ready should that day arrive. You know, though, I still don't feel guilty having once dropped the wish for impeachment. Beyond economic consequences, I worry that his more rabid supporters may engage in scattered impeachment violence. But I do now mostly support Yrump's being kicked to the curb. Rob
10-9-19, 6:55pm
gimmethesimplelife

Should be Trump in the last sentence. Rob
10-9-19, 6:59pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

I don't want to be a jerk here. Alan keeps this site up and running, and he is entitled to his opinion. That said, Thank You for your last sentence, Frugal One. Rob

Ha ha Rob, don't worry, I'm inclined towards conservatism so there's no danger I'll hold yours and Frugal-one's hostility against you. That's a progressive trait. :+1:
10-9-19, 7:03pm
bae

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

That's my understanding as well. I believe they've even recently delegated subpoena power to committee's without the need for floor approval, eliminating several centuries of tradition designed to ensure all representatives of the people have a voice in this sort of thing. [/COLOR]

That must be sort of handy, to be able to set up dozens of little Star Chambers!

It's weird, when I was an elected official, we had to formally memorialize by vote any delegation of powers to committees we formed. And the state-level regulations would not allow us to evade that.
10-9-19, 7:04pm
bae

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

I have made sure my impeachment outfit is ready should that day arrive.

Are you going to wear it when the articles of impeachment are handed to the Senate? Or are you going to wait for an actual conviction?
10-9-19, 7:09pm
gimmethesimplelife

Quote:

Originally Posted by bae

Are you going to wear it when the articles of impeachment are handed to the Senate? Or are you going to wait for an actual conviction?

I was thinking of wearing it the day Trump is kicked to the curb and there is a neighborhood celebration I will once again be welcome at. Though I will admit I'm not totally up on impeachment etiquette (sp?) Is it appropriate to dress up on the days the articles of impeachment are handed to the Senate? I really don't know - does that tend to be a big deal day, too? Rob
10-9-19, 7:20pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

I was thinking of wearing it the day Trump is kicked to the curb and there is a neighborhood celebration I will once again be welcome at. Though I will admit I'm not totally up on impeachment etiquette (sp?) Is it appropriate to dress up on the days the articles of impeachment are handed to the Senate? I really don't know - does that tend to be a big deal day, too? Rob

I think it would be fun if you put it on now and wore it every day till he's removed from office, men's styles don't change much so you should be fine.
10-9-19, 7:30pm
gimmethesimplelife

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

I think it would be fun if you put it on now and wore it every day till he's removed from office, men's styles don't change much so you should be fine.

No, I can't do that. To do so.would be being disrespectful. No can do. Rob
10-9-19, 7:44pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

No, I can't do that. To do so.would be being disrespectful. No can do. Rob

I agree that procuring an impeachment outfit several years ago was a disrespectful thing to do, but I'm confused on why you think committing to wearing it until your dreams are fulfilled would be. Can you explain?
10-9-19, 8:21pm
Rogar

I was told that once there is a formal vote to proceed with impeachment, documents or witnesses that have been requested by Congress but held up in the cumbersome legal process could be expedited (or denied) through the Supreme Court, which is what happened with Nixon? I'm not sure how to fact check this, but it would sure stream line the road blocks that the White House has put in place.
10-9-19, 8:33pm
gimmethesimplelife

Question for one and all here as I just don't get this? What does Trump hope to achieve by having his White House refuse to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry? Has The Orange One Of Evil never heard the following three words: Obstruction of justice? Does he believe such concepts don't apply to him?

Gotta admit his non cooperation with the Impeachment Inquiry makes me feel justified in the supporting an impeachment. I was wrong to be so radical and stop supporting him being ousted. To one and all, I'm sorry and more than a bit embarrassed. Rob
10-9-19, 9:31pm
gimmethesimplelife

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

I agree that procuring an impeachment outfit several years ago was a disrespectful thing to do, but I'm confused on why you think committing to wearing it until your dreams are fulfilled would be. Can you explain?

Buying the outfit in the first place was a very respectful thing to do - what would be disrespectful is to wear it for any non-extremely-special occasion as the outfit is above my station in life. That was my meaning. Rob
10-9-19, 9:58pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Buying the outfit in the first place was a very respectful thing to do - what would be disrespectful is to wear it for any non-extremely-special occasion as the outfit is above my station in life. That was my meaning. Rob

You know the Oxford Circus station in London is probably the most run-down I've ever encountered but people using it were still pretty well dressed. You can rise above your self-imposed shoddiness and be Paddington. No one will blame you.
10-9-19, 10:03pm
gimmethesimplelife

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

You know the Oxford Circus station in London is probably the most run-down I've ever encountered but people using it were still pretty well dressed. You can rise above your self-imposed shoddiness and be Paddington. No one will blame you.

Dressing above my station in life for no special reason goes against how I was raised and is also disrespectful to the Austrian flag - a point I've made here before. But I have a solution. Why don't you dress above your station in life you are so motivated - you don't operate with the constraints that I do. Rob
10-9-19, 10:40pm
iris lilies

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Question for one and all here as I just don't get this? What does Trump hope to achieve by having his White House refuse to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry? Has The Orange One Of Evil never heard the following three words: Obstruction of justice? Does he believe such concepts don't apply to him?

Gotta admit his non cooperation with the Impeachment Inquiry makes me feel justified in the supporting an impeachment. I was wrong to be so radical and stop supporting him being ousted. To one and all, I'm sorry and more than a bit embarrassed. Rob

Relax Rob no one mistook you for anyone other than a “ dump
Trump by any means necessary” person.
10-9-19, 10:46pm
Rogar

Quote:

Originally Posted by iris lilies

Relax Rob no one mistook you for anyone other than a “ dump
Trump by any means necessary” person.

I don't necessarily see that as a problem.
10-10-19, 7:49am
LDAHL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogar

I was told that once there is a formal vote to proceed with impeachment, documents or witnesses that have been requested by Congress but held up in the cumbersome legal process could be expedited (or denied) through the Supreme Court, which is what happened with Nixon? I'm not sure how to fact check this, but it would sure stream line the road blocks that the White House has put in place.

Then why would Pelosi not want to initiate the process with the usual vote rather than a press conference? Are there members in close districts fearful of going on the record?
10-10-19, 9:08am
gimmethesimplelife

I see some historic protest marches coming up due to Trump's obstruction of justice via White House non-cooperation in the impeachment inquiry. US society being what it is, likely the police will break the law, being filmed while doing so, and generating negative or and large settlements for some.

Would it not have been saner and easier to elect Hillary Clinton? Rob
10-10-19, 9:15am
iris lilies

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogar

I don't necessarily see that as a problem.

It’s not.

It is Rob’s endless contortions to make himself the Center Of Attention by creating imaginary conflicting positions that is a problem in lucidity and, well, honesty.

Being anti Trump is reasonable.
10-10-19, 9:16am
JaneV2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogar

I was told that once there is a formal vote to proceed with impeachment, documents or witnesses that have been requested by Congress but held up in the cumbersome legal process could be expedited (or denied) through the Supreme Court, which is what happened with Nixon? I'm not sure how to fact check this, but it would sure stream line the road blocks that the White House has put in place.

You're right--the vote isn't necessary, per the Constitution. Personally, I see no reason not to take one, but I trust Nancy Pelosi's judgment on this.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:25am.