News Democrats move forward towards impeaching Trump.

[Hands]

We are really getting off track here, so its the last I will say on this, as I think we are talking over one another.

The Republican's impeached Clinton for lying under oath and witness intimidation, where did he lie under oath and engage in witness intimidation? A sexual harassment lawsuit case. I never said the lawsuit itself was grounds for impeachment, what was grounds for impeachment was lying under oath and witness intimidation in attempting to get around the sexual harassment lawsuit.

A court case that didn't go anywhere lol. It was politically motivated, had absolutely nothing to do with the case. Incredible the lengths you go to when it comes to defending Trump as a victim of political bias despite the litany of lawsuits brought against him but are completely willing to pretend that Clinton's own impeachment wasn't an attempt at a political hitjob

 

[Maedar]

Close, Republicans impeached Clinton for lying under oath and witness intimidation during a sexual harassment lawsuit, and even if you do not think those rise to impeachable crimes, I would say you would be hard pressed to find Republicans wanting to impeach Clinton from the moment his hand left the Bible, like the Democrats have with Trump.

Right, SURE they did. The Starr Report contained the word "cigar" more than twice as much as the word "Whitewater".

ALT, we ain't dumb. Let me give you a comparison, Al Capone.

When he was finally arrested, the charge was "tax evasion". So why did they send a small army of federal agents to arrest him and employ the best prosecutors in the country at his trial, all for a white collar criminal?

Because, they were using "tax evasion" as an excuse; they doubted they could present charges of mass-murder, bootlegging, extortion, and bribing countless officials and police, and make them stick. But Capone was a dangerous man who had to be taken down, so they did so with "tax evasion".

And to think, people don't like the IRS, who contributed just as much towards taking the fiend down as Eliot Ness.

Clinton's impeachment was a politically-motivated attack on his person, using "perjury" as an excuse to paint him as an immoral sex-fiend (orchestrated by a hypocritical House Speaker who was himself an unfaithful husband), and I gotta laugh at anyone who suggests otherwise.

 

[Nah]

So what do y'all think is gonna happen now? Are the Senate Republicans gonna go for a short trial and vote, or are they gonna drag it out?

 

[Maedar]

So what do y'all think is gonna happen now? Are the Senate Republicans gonna go for a short trial and vote, or are they gonna drag it out?

IMOHO, if they were smart, they'd take the former option. But I do think they're vindictive and petty enough to try the latter.

If they DO call Schiff to the stand and try to get him to confess to whatever they think he's guilty of, they're in for a reality check. Hopefully, whoever tries to grill him will be better at it than those RUDE protesters who stormed his Town Hall event last week uninvited and called him a traitor with rather "colorful" language.

 

[TailsMK4]

I do believe the Senate will be successful if they decide to drag this out, and I personally think they should, but that is not my call to make. That is likely why the Democrats are not going to submit the articles right away, as they know their chances of making this work are zero, and they will lose all control once it moves to the Senate. The public has been split on impeachment for a while (though again, polls only tell a small part of the story, so I do not take them into consideration), so we can tell how divisive this has been to the country. I do believe the Democrats set a very dangerous tone moving forward (I again stick to the opinion that the impeachment process has been a huge waste of time), so I would urge the House and Senate to perhaps take another look at how the impeachment process should be set up, or it is very likely to come up again.

 

[Corrin]

Is it that much of an embarrassment? It was largely a party line vote, suggesting further impeachment's may be similar and become more of the norm. Republicans are already saying the next Democratic President should be impeached.

As for his re-election campaign, his polls have gone up recently, and this whole thing is helping Trump rake in money, if anything Trump will try and turn this into Kavanaugh 2.0, to fire up the base.

This is what I call "Trump Mania" why is he so popular? Why are these people do ride and die for him? He's immature as shit and makes shit deals that ends up making other countries hate the US.
Also we don't know who the next dem president will be so how...can they say that?

 

[Taemin]

As long as we don't have four more years of him, I've gotten to the point where I didn't care if he was impeached, because all it will do now is embarrass him. He likely won't leave office, and no matter how childish he sounds when he speaks or tweets, there's still millions of people who want him in office. I'm just sick of hearing about it. At this point even people who don't support him won't speak up or go against him, because they're afraid of the people in their social circles judging them. I've had so many people tell me that, it's so sad to me.

Merry Impeachmas indeed, I just want him gone so I never have to hear about him ever again unless I willingly look it up. lol

 

[EnglishALT]

This is what I call "Trump Mania" why is he so popular? Why are these people do ride and die for him? He's immature as shit and makes shit deals that ends up making other countries hate the US.
Also we don't know who the next dem president will be so how...can they say that?

It's the same reason Obama was popular, people in an increasingly divisive social media world latch on to their side and refuse to let go.

He also is a fighter, someone that will punch, bite, and claw back, compare that to the last three Republicans: Mitt Romney, John McCain, and George W Bush. All of which wanted to express decorum and not fight back.

Anyway latest impeachment strategy seems to be that Pelosi won't send over the appointed members to make the house's case to the Senate. This seems to utterly undermine the urgency displayed earlier to get impeachment done as fast as possible. It also does not make any constitutional sense as the Senate could theoretically start the trial without anyone from the House anyway.

 

[Her]

Oh that George W. Bush, known for his decorum and sense of decency

 

[EnglishALT]

Oh that George W. Bush, known for his decorum and sense of decency

Yes, largely George W Bush, was seen as someone who would not hit back, be it against the media, or those that maligned him in the Senate or House. He saw it as beneath the Presidency.

 

[Maedar]

Yes, largely George W Bush, was seen as someone who would not hit back, be it against the media, or those that maligned him in the Senate or House. He saw it as beneath the Presidency.

And he should have. Dignity has always been seen as a positive trait among world leaders. Trump is a rude, obnoxious boor, who somehow wonders why other world leaders despise him. He is NOT a fighter, fyw, he is ALL talk.

I personally have no idea why anyone supports him. He makes me sick.

But here's an article I found with an opinion on it:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/3-types-trump-supporters-and-why-they-defend-ben-shapiro

 

[Corrin]

It's the same reason Obama was popular, people in an increasingly divisive social media world latch on to their side and refuse to let go.

He also is a fighter, someone that will punch, bite, and claw back, compare that to the last three Republicans: Mitt Romney, John McCain, and George W Bush. All of which wanted to express decorum and not fight back.

Anyway latest impeachment strategy seems to be that Pelosi won't send over the appointed members to make the house's case to the Senate. This seems to utterly undermine the urgency displayed earlier to get impeachment done as fast as possible. It also does not make any constitutional sense as the Senate could theoretically start the trial without anyone from the House anyway.

It's ok to be assertive but I find most of what he does is childish, like threats and tantrums. Surely world leaders can solve more issues if they talk in a mature, respectful manner to each other and learn to compromise but that's just me.

Also Bush was a fucking idiot who didn't know how to talk, I'm shocked he graduated high school. He fabricated a lie about Iraq just to "finish" what his idiot father started and destabilized a whole nation just for oil. The war in the middle east doesn't need to continue, there's no weapons of mass destruction, bin laden is dead. Let these people rebuild their lives.

 

[Maedar]

Being "assertive" is one thing. Trump long ago crossed the line into "obnoxious" and "vulgar".

The war in the middle east doesn't need to continue, there's no weapons of mass destruction, bin laden is dead. Let these people rebuild their lives.

You forget, Dimitri, the policy among right-wingers is, "until we see the body, Bin Laden ain't dead!"

And when they DO see photographic evidence, it's "obviously" been "shopped".

Why? Well, as Seth Meyers famously said, "Barack Obama will go down in history as the first black person ever to have to prove that he killed someone."

 

[LDSman]

Back on topic....
Feldman says that if pelosi doesn't transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, then the Pres isn't actually impeached.

It's rather amusing that Pelosi seems to be demanding a quid pro quo for for this.

 

[TailsMK4]

Back on topic....
Feldman says that if pelosi doesn't transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, then the Pres isn't actually impeached.

It's rather amusing that Pelosi seems to be demanding a quid pro quo for for this.

The longer they wait to do this, the more the independent voters will suspect that this was not an attempt to "uphold the Constitution", but rather a partisan move to make it easier for their candidate to win the 2020 election using any means necessary, which for me is pretty obvious that is the reason for the impeachment, But the Democrats also know that the impeachment is dead on arrival in the Senate, and the Republicans there have a choice on how they want to proceed with it, whether to just end the impeachment right then, or hold a trial anyway, but more focus on Schiff and the Bidens rather than on Trump, in addition to forcing many of the Democratic challengers to have to stay at Washington as opposed to being able to campaign for their shot at the presidency. I like the latter myself, but if the Senate decides not to do a trial, there will be others that will investigate, so this topic of impeachment is going to be talked about long after it dies out in the Senate.

The Senate, as-is, needs the House to submit the articles as well as representatives from the House before a trial can officially begin, but the Senate could change that if they wish, since they have the votes needed to change how impeachment works in the Senate. What they will do depends on what Pelosi decides to do, since right now she has chosen to hold the articles.

The other thing that can happen is that the articles are not submitted at all, and just dropped...which is ironic since they were so fired up about impeachment in the first place that it would look really bad on them if they did that, meaning it was even more of a political play than any attempt at "justice". Either way you look at it, the Democrats have backed themselves into a corner, with both ways to get out of said corner potentially very damaging to them, and staying in said corner also damaging. The smart move was not to do this in the first place, but I think Pelosi and the others gave in to the radicalized portion of the party that really should have joined the Socialist party in the first place...ah, but third parties do not do very well in this country, so that option was out.

Couple what's going on with candidates that are not very strong to go against Trump, and it makes perfect sense why they went through with this: they stand no chance unless they are able to convince voters to vote Democrat, and I do believe they have succeeded somewhat in this due to many factors, but maybe not enough since they have alienated many of the independents that do follow politics, even if it was very painful this year to follow politics. Again, I am just stating my opinions on the matter, but I have not seen anything by the Democrats to convince me to change my mind on the topic of impeachment, and in fact I have a very negative opinion of the party now.

 

[LDSman]

I think it'll be the same outcome no matter what the senate does. The Dems will be upset the Trump wasn't removed from office and claim political bias.

 

[Nah]

tbh I don't see the point in Pelosi delaying sending it up to the Senate, there's nothing to be gained from it afaik

even if the Senate for some reason grants her request, the extra testimony won't change the outcome of the vote, nor will it significantly change public opinion (and maybe by extension, the election), it's obvious those were set in stone a long time ago

 

[LDSman]

tbh I don't see the point in Pelosi delaying sending it up to the Senate, there's nothing to be gained from it afaik

even if the Senate for some reason grants her request, the extra testimony won't change the outcome of the vote, nor will it significantly change public opinion (and maybe by extension, the election), it's obvious those were set in stone a long time ago

She wants to dictate how the Senate runs the "trial." A clear violation of the separation of powers, I think.

 

[EnglishALT]

tbh I don't see the point in Pelosi delaying sending it up to the Senate, there's nothing to be gained from it afaik

even if the Senate for some reason grants her request, the extra testimony won't change the outcome of the vote, nor will it significantly change public opinion (and maybe by extension, the election), it's obvious those were set in stone a long time ago

One suggestion I heard is she wishes to string this out as long as possible so that Trump will give his State of the Union while under impeachment. It is a little extra jab, where he cannot claim vindication during the speech.

 

[Maedar]

One suggestion I heard is she wishes to string this out as long as possible so that Trump will give his State of the Union while under impeachment. It is a little extra jab, where he cannot claim vindication during the speech.

Some would call that clever, because when he does inevitably claim victory with a grandiose speech on how he "vanquished the corrupt Deep State" and was "exonerated completely" and all that nonsense, it's much better to limit it to a Tweet storm than let him use the most important annual event in Washington D.C. to do so. Wouldn't you think?