News Democrats move forward towards impeaching Trump.

[Maedar]

Uh, Alt, did you not notice the part of your poll that said, "Biden Surges"?

 

[EnglishALT]

Uh, Alt, did you not notice the part of your poll that said, "Biden Surges"?

Yes but it is not part of the topic of impeachment, that would be worth mentioning in the Democrat primary thread, so that is why I focused strictly on the impeachment part.

 

[Maedar]

I also notice you've said nothing about the IG Report, something you mentioned about a week ago.

 

[EnglishALT]

I also notice you've said nothing about the IG Report, something you mentioned about a week ago.

Again that is not part of the topic, the mods want us to stay on topic and we need to do so. The discussion is about impeachment, if you want to discuss the IG report feel free to make a topic or PM me.

 

[Nah]

Two articles of impeachment dropped this morning, the first related to Ukraine, the second obstruction of justice.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/politics/impeachment-articles-announced/index.html

The second one seems like filler and uniquely stupid as the Democrats did not even attempt to go to the courts to settle the issue of executive privilege.

I'd imagine that they didn't bother going to the courts on the second matter so as to not run the potential risk of having the courts rule in favor of Trump, as well as not drag things out too long. It's pretty clear that the Dems want this moved up to the Senate asap.

It would look better for them if they went through the courts first on that matter, but some would also argue that it's not really necessary to do, that it should be obvious that executive privilege is not an unlimited power and "tell literally everyone not to testify" is not ok, coupled with the fact that Trump has gotten away with attempted obstruction of justice before.

 

[EnglishALT]

I'd imagine that they didn't bother going to the courts on the second matter so as to not run the potential risk of having the courts rule in favor of Trump, as well as not drag things out too long. It's pretty clear that the Dems want this moved up to the Senate asap.

You are absolutely correct on the second part about dragging it out too long. This is about the election and Democrats have said they want it done before the election.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/12/schiff-confirms-impeachment-of-trump-is-all-about-2020/

It would look better for them if they went through the courts first on that matter, but some would also argue that it's not really necessary to do, that it should be obvious that executive privilege is not an unlimited power and "tell literally everyone not to testify" is not ok, coupled with the fact that Trump has gotten away with attempted obstruction of justice before.

Counter argument though is that executive privilege can be rather broad and the courts tend to defer to it. You can't truly claim that the President is obstructing Justice when the President is using a proper power granted to him, and that the courts have upheld. If he is going too far then take it to the judiciary, adding it as an article of impeachment just seems like padding and filler.

 

[Maedar]

It's official now.

 

[LDSman]

And it went exactly as people predicted. Along party lines.

 

[EnglishALT]

Democratic congressman Jeff Van Drew is switching parties over impeachment.

" Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a moderate Democrat who is strongly opposed to impeaching President Donald Trump, is expected to switch parties and become a Republican, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation.

Van Drew is one of two Democrats who voted against opening the impeachment inquiry into Trump and has remained against the effort, even as the House prepares to vote to impeach the president next week. Van Drew's decision comes after a meeting with Trump on Friday."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/14/jeff-van-drew-change-parties-085036

 

[Her]

a 'moderate' democrat is a republican by definition so that is hardly surprising

 

[Maedar]

Poll from Fox:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...s-the-view-of-its-most-loyal-viewer/23881312/

 

[EnglishALT]

So I guess the question that is rapidly approaching and one I have heard debated on US talk radio, is what kind of trial should the republicans hold.

Option A: This one goes by quick, the house presents the report, the Trump lawyers lay out their rebuttal, a vote is called to acquit, and everything is finished by lunch.

Option B: A slower trial, the Republicans have the power now, and can make this thing as slow and painful as possible right before the primary season. Make sure the trial is going on almost every day so Senator Sanders and Senator Warren are forced to attend instead of campaign, call in Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Congressman Schiff, the whistle blower to testify. Call up expert after expert to say it wasn't impeachable, and then after a month or two, or five... vote to acquit.

Honestly I am all for Option A, the public is sick of impeachment, it's not a priority and the faster we get it over with the better. However Option B does entice me a little....

 

[Hands]

Pushing impeachment this close to an election during a messy nomination race is a bad idea.

 

[Maedar]

ALT, you do know, I assume, that if Schiff is called to testify, he can very well plead the 5th.

I don't know if he will or not, but if he does choose to answer questions, it wouldn't exactly be good for the witnesses who ignored subpoenas issued by the House.

For the record, most experts say that what Trump did was, indeed, impeachable, and if you know of any expert who says otherwise, I'd like to hear it. Right now, all I've heard from his defenders is whataboutism, conspiracy theories, and nonsensical babbling, most of it from Nunes and Trump himself. It's really embarrassing if you ask me.

Honestly I am all for Option A, the public is sick of impeachment, it's not a priority and the faster we get it over with the better. However Option B does entice me a little....

I posted a poll to say otherwise. Seeing Trump's voters try to debunk the poll without saying anything bad about Fox itself has been entertaining to say the least. They actually think Fox has Democrat viewers.

 

[EnglishALT]

ALT, you do know, I assume, that if Schiff is called to testify, he can very well plead the 5th.

I don't know if he will or not, but if he does, it wouldn't exactly be good for the witnesses who ignored subpoenas issued by the House.

All of those that I mentioned can testify the 5th, yet is that the strategy the democrats want to go with for a prolonged trial? Every question asked, every insinuation, and the response is that they are invoking their right to self incriminate?

The campaign ads suggesting those people have something criminal to hide would be priceless.

For the record, most experts say that what Trump did was, indeed, impeachable, and if you know of any expert who says otherwise, I'd like to hear it.

Off the top of my head Jonathan Turley, who handled himself quite well in a 3 on 1 situation in the house when discussing this, and Alan Dershowitz

Right now, all I've heard from his defenders is whataboutism, conspiracy theories, and nonsensical babbling, most of it from Nunes and Trump himself. It's really embarrassing if you ask me.

That is some Grade A quality Strawmen right there!

 

[Maedar]

All of those that I mentioned can testify the 5th, yet is that the strategy the democrats want to go with for a prolonged trial?

Let me put it this way, Trump's "strategy" is ordering witnesses to ignore subpoenas (that's not legal, in case you forgot) and rant about Democrats obtaining nude pictures of Trump.

Off the top of my head Jonathan Turley, who handled himself quite well in a 3 on 1 situation in the house when discussing this, and Alan Dershowitz

Arguing about Dershowitz will only cause a flame war, but I will say here, he is comic relief at best.

I'd like to hear your opinion of THESE legal experts, and I ask, why is Turley's opinion superior?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThuoocI1mLk

That is some Grade A quality Strawmen right there!

So, commenting on this is a Strawman? He said this during the actual inquiry, a rant that makes me wonder how he was ever elected.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnmk-GEyr78

 

[EnglishALT]

Let me put it this way, Trump's "strategy" is ordering witnesses to ignore subpoenas (that's not legal, in case you forgot) and rant about Democrats obtaining nude pictures of Trump.

That may be Trump's "strategy" but I doubt it's his re-election team's strategy, I doubt it's the RNC's strategy for how to use all of this impeachment stupidity to win re-election. However then again we are only guessing here.

Arguing about Dershowitz will only cause a flame war, but I will say here, he is comic relief at best.

I'd like to hear your opinion of THESE legal experts, and I ask, why is Turley's opinion superior?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThuoocI1mLk

Irrelevant,

You can not like the two I suggested, of who you asked for I remind you, it is highly unlikely that the Republicans are going to approve a legal expert that believes Trump should be impeached, so again irrelevant.

 

[Maedar]

That may be Trump's "strategy" but I doubt it's his re-election team's strategy, I doubt it's the RNC's strategy.

Trump's reelection strategy is, "use the most absurd lies you can dream up to rile up the crowd." A hundred years ago, he'd be called a "rabble-rouser" and thrown in an asylum.

The RNC's strategy is, "make excuses for Trump, no matter what crimes or atrocities he commits."

You can not like the two I suggested, of who you asked for I remind you, it is highly unlikely that the Republicans are going to approve a legal expert that believes Trump should be impeached

I agree, seeing as their attitude thus far has been, "Trump is always right, Democrats are always wrong."

And WHY is my post "irrelevant"? It's as relevant as yours.

 

[EnglishALT]

And WHY is my post "irrelevant"? It's as relevant as yours.

As I said, it is extremely unlikely the Republicans would call them, just as Democrats only called witnesses that would back their view on impeachment.

Kind of a version of "Democrats are always right, Trump is always wrong."

To paraphrase your previous post, so it's irrelevant to the topic at hand, to compare and contrast them and go off topic discussing it when it will do nothing more than get the mods pissed at us not sticking to the topic.

 

[Maedar]

In that case, ALT, we have differing opinions. I expect mine to be respected, and not labeled "irrelevant".

I should also remind you that it does not matter your opinion of the witnesses. Said witnesses ignored a subpoena, which is an illegal act.

And I want an apology for my comment being called "some Grade A quality Strawmen", seeing as I was pointing out Nunes' shameful behavior in the actual inquiry.