***DONALD J TRUMP HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN IMPEACHED***
Comments
-
100% agreed.josevolution said:
I too believe it will die in the Senate but feel it still has to be done to be on the record books that in 2019 the House did its constitutional dutyJason P said:josevolution said:
So because of that looming scenario you believe this should of never been done? In other words let him do what ever he wants since he is the president..Jason P said:
What I think is that this will get shot down in the Senate.mrussel1 said:
So you think what Trump did with Ukraine is either acceptable or standard presidential behavior?Jason P said:Well at least if Biden wins we will have a POTUS with an impeccable record and guarded public speaking that will in no way open himself up to the GOP using this as a precident to launch a similar show in a few years. Whew.
I may be wrong about it getting shot down in the senate if the plan was to never send it there. We shall see.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
That is where the Quid Pro Quo would come in to play. That won't be proven either.mrussel1 said:
Okay, so using tax payer dollars to induce a foreign government to investigate someone you don't like isn't impeachable? That's a not a breach of the people's trust? That's pretty fucking corrupt.tempo_n_groove said:
I've said this before, Trump is vindictive and anyone that utters a bad word against him he goes after.mrussel1 said:
Trump made a calculation that Biden would be the candidate. So are you saying that it was happenstance that Biden is on his radar here? Are you saying that he is truly trying to root out corruption? If you don't see what I'm saying, how do you explain his behavior? Is it just a series of unfortunate events?tempo_n_groove said:
He would have multiple rivals in the upcoming election, is he going to have them all investigated? Having it tied to aid is not interfering with the upcoming election... It can be assumed or implied, that is it. It isn't cut and dry. So no.mrussel1 said:
You don't understand how asking a foreign gov't to launch a sham investigation into his most likely 2020 rival, and demanding it be done on television, while tying it to aid isn't attempting to interfere and corrupt the election? You don't see how he is using the power of the presidency to give himself an unfair advantage and leveraging OUR tax dollars to do it?
Again I'll ask because apparently I am "ignorant"...
No where do yo mention that Trump wanted other countries to interfere with an election.
That is what I am missing and you did too, but I'm ignorant?
Come now...
No I don't support Trump but the reach here is just that. Reaching.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me the evidence of where Trump asked for the election interference?
Not seeing how he used his presidency to "leverage" an advantage. No on that too.
Just not seeing it the way you all do which is interesting, if you dislike Trump, he's guilty. You like Trump, he's innocent.
I don't care for Trump but I think he is innocent.
I guess I'm in the center then...
That is how I see it.
Optics aren't good and I get that but too much hearsay and too much stretching by the dems for this.
Look if you think politics is all by the book then maybe we have a bigger problem. It's not. It's dirty and some are better than others at it.0 -
This is also an unusual argument. Everyone knows from the beginning that this would die in the Senate. So how are the Dems trying to undo the election? We are less than a year from the election. How do you undo a three year old election? They're obviously making a principled stand. Second, Pelosi has not called for impeachment from day one. So who cares what Maxine Waters said. Nancy is the one that needed to be convinced that the behavior rose to that level. She resisted the calls during the Russia probe. But this was a bridge too far.mace1229 said:I'll admit my work life has been crazy a few months and I don't know as many details as I would like. But this is my perception so far. As tempo said, some have been calling for impeachment since the day he was elected. So at the very least this has obviously been a goal since before he was even sworn in. With Christmas break 2 days away hopefully I'll have time to read more up on it, but it definitely has a ring of crying wolf based on the last 3 years, and that the goal wasn't to enforce democracy, but instead undo an election they didn't like.0 -
So you think through all of the witness testimonies, the texts, the Gordon Sundlands, it hasn't been proven that Trump demanded that the Uke gov't do this for the aid? WTF do you need as proof? A signed affidavit by Trump?tempo_n_groove said:
That is where the Quid Pro Quo would come in to play. That won't be proven either.mrussel1 said:
Okay, so using tax payer dollars to induce a foreign government to investigate someone you don't like isn't impeachable? That's a not a breach of the people's trust? That's pretty fucking corrupt.tempo_n_groove said:
I've said this before, Trump is vindictive and anyone that utters a bad word against him he goes after.mrussel1 said:
Trump made a calculation that Biden would be the candidate. So are you saying that it was happenstance that Biden is on his radar here? Are you saying that he is truly trying to root out corruption? If you don't see what I'm saying, how do you explain his behavior? Is it just a series of unfortunate events?tempo_n_groove said:
He would have multiple rivals in the upcoming election, is he going to have them all investigated? Having it tied to aid is not interfering with the upcoming election... It can be assumed or implied, that is it. It isn't cut and dry. So no.mrussel1 said:
You don't understand how asking a foreign gov't to launch a sham investigation into his most likely 2020 rival, and demanding it be done on television, while tying it to aid isn't attempting to interfere and corrupt the election? You don't see how he is using the power of the presidency to give himself an unfair advantage and leveraging OUR tax dollars to do it?
Again I'll ask because apparently I am "ignorant"...
No where do yo mention that Trump wanted other countries to interfere with an election.
That is what I am missing and you did too, but I'm ignorant?
Come now...
No I don't support Trump but the reach here is just that. Reaching.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me the evidence of where Trump asked for the election interference?
Not seeing how he used his presidency to "leverage" an advantage. No on that too.
Just not seeing it the way you all do which is interesting, if you dislike Trump, he's guilty. You like Trump, he's innocent.
I don't care for Trump but I think he is innocent.
I guess I'm in the center then...
That is how I see it.
Optics aren't good and I get that but too much hearsay and too much stretching by the dems for this.
Look if you think politics is all by the book then maybe we have a bigger problem. It's not. It's dirty and some are better than others at it.0 -
The other side of this is I definitely think it's been handled sloppily by Democrats. You're right about the crying wolf stuff. They also should have called some key guys (or used the courts to compel those they did call) like Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. Now they're playing games with sending it to the Senate.mace1229 said:I'll admit my work life has been crazy a few months and I don't know as many details as I would like. But this is my perception so far. As tempo said, some have been calling for impeachment since the day he was elected. So at the very least this has obviously been a goal since before he was even sworn in. With Christmas break 2 days away hopefully I'll have time to read more up on it, but it definitely has a ring of crying wolf based on the last 3 years, and that the goal wasn't to enforce democracy, but instead undo an election they didn't like.
In my view, he committed impeachable offenses but those tasked with holding him accountable aren't doing themselves any favors. The whole thing is being driven into the ground by partisanship. I choose to drink.0 -
True. But my point was it has been an agenda for many dems for 3 years, before any of this even happened. And maybe they don't think they can undo the election, but maybe they believed (and still do?) it would hurt his chances for reelection, especially if they delay the trial until closer to November.mrussel1 said:
This is also an unusual argument. Everyone knows from the beginning that this would die in the Senate. So how are the Dems trying to undo the election? We are less than a year from the election. How do you undo a three year old election? They're obviously making a principled stand. Second, Pelosi has not called for impeachment from day one. So who cares what Maxine Waters said. Nancy is the one that needed to be convinced that the behavior rose to that level. She resisted the calls during the Russia probe. But this was a bridge too far.mace1229 said:I'll admit my work life has been crazy a few months and I don't know as many details as I would like. But this is my perception so far. As tempo said, some have been calling for impeachment since the day he was elected. So at the very least this has obviously been a goal since before he was even sworn in. With Christmas break 2 days away hopefully I'll have time to read more up on it, but it definitely has a ring of crying wolf based on the last 3 years, and that the goal wasn't to enforce democracy, but instead undo an election they didn't like.
Like I said, I'm not convinced one way or another at this point. But based on the fact that many people were demanding impeachment before he was even sworn in makes me lean towards this was probably a stretch. I may change my mind when I have a chance to follow up more on it.Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
The responses on this forum are driving me to not only drink, but chug. Ugh.It's a hopeless situation...0
-
And, yeah, the House does what they have to do regardless of what the Senate might do. They could have done a much better job in getting some testimony out in the open, but at least you're putting people on the record. I can't help but think if they had done a better job in the hearings, it puts Senate Republicans in a tighter spot to hold the line.0
-
It's possible to have a bunch of bad actors who want to railroad a guy and a guy who operates in a way that allows himself to get railroaded. Which is what I think happened here.mace1229 said:
True. But my point was it has been an agenda for many dems for 3 years, before any of this even happened. And maybe they don't think they can undo the election, but maybe they believed (and still do?) it would hurt his chances for reelection, especially if they delay the trial until closer to November.mrussel1 said:
This is also an unusual argument. Everyone knows from the beginning that this would die in the Senate. So how are the Dems trying to undo the election? We are less than a year from the election. How do you undo a three year old election? They're obviously making a principled stand. Second, Pelosi has not called for impeachment from day one. So who cares what Maxine Waters said. Nancy is the one that needed to be convinced that the behavior rose to that level. She resisted the calls during the Russia probe. But this was a bridge too far.mace1229 said:I'll admit my work life has been crazy a few months and I don't know as many details as I would like. But this is my perception so far. As tempo said, some have been calling for impeachment since the day he was elected. So at the very least this has obviously been a goal since before he was even sworn in. With Christmas break 2 days away hopefully I'll have time to read more up on it, but it definitely has a ring of crying wolf based on the last 3 years, and that the goal wasn't to enforce democracy, but instead undo an election they didn't like.
Like I said, I'm not convinced one way or another at this point. But based on the fact that many people were demanding impeachment before he was even sworn in makes me lean towards this was probably a stretch. I may change my mind when I have a chance to follow up more on it.0 -
How were they supposed to do a better job of getting people to testify when the president openly told them not to?pjl44 said:And, yeah, the House does what they have to do regardless of what the Senate might do. They could have done a much better job in getting some testimony out in the open, but at least you're putting people on the record. I can't help but think if they had done a better job in the hearings, it puts Senate Republicans in a tighter spot to hold the line.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
Shit, even Congressional Republicans acknowledge what he did. They take the angle of "hey, that's what foreign aid is for - to get other nations to work in your interests." Which obviously I have several issues with. But anyone arguing that that isn't even what happened is in a small circle at this point.mrussel1 said:
So you think through all of the witness testimonies, the texts, the Gordon Sundlands, it hasn't been proven that Trump demanded that the Uke gov't do this for the aid? WTF do you need as proof? A signed affidavit by Trump?tempo_n_groove said:
That is where the Quid Pro Quo would come in to play. That won't be proven either.mrussel1 said:
Okay, so using tax payer dollars to induce a foreign government to investigate someone you don't like isn't impeachable? That's a not a breach of the people's trust? That's pretty fucking corrupt.tempo_n_groove said:
I've said this before, Trump is vindictive and anyone that utters a bad word against him he goes after.mrussel1 said:
Trump made a calculation that Biden would be the candidate. So are you saying that it was happenstance that Biden is on his radar here? Are you saying that he is truly trying to root out corruption? If you don't see what I'm saying, how do you explain his behavior? Is it just a series of unfortunate events?tempo_n_groove said:
He would have multiple rivals in the upcoming election, is he going to have them all investigated? Having it tied to aid is not interfering with the upcoming election... It can be assumed or implied, that is it. It isn't cut and dry. So no.mrussel1 said:
You don't understand how asking a foreign gov't to launch a sham investigation into his most likely 2020 rival, and demanding it be done on television, while tying it to aid isn't attempting to interfere and corrupt the election? You don't see how he is using the power of the presidency to give himself an unfair advantage and leveraging OUR tax dollars to do it?
Again I'll ask because apparently I am "ignorant"...
No where do yo mention that Trump wanted other countries to interfere with an election.
That is what I am missing and you did too, but I'm ignorant?
Come now...
No I don't support Trump but the reach here is just that. Reaching.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me the evidence of where Trump asked for the election interference?
Not seeing how he used his presidency to "leverage" an advantage. No on that too.
Just not seeing it the way you all do which is interesting, if you dislike Trump, he's guilty. You like Trump, he's innocent.
I don't care for Trump but I think he is innocent.
I guess I'm in the center then...
That is how I see it.
Optics aren't good and I get that but too much hearsay and too much stretching by the dems for this.
Look if you think politics is all by the book then maybe we have a bigger problem. It's not. It's dirty and some are better than others at it.0 -
2019
I couldn't believe what I was reading this morning. Had to step away for the afternoon .Unreal.tbergs said:The responses on this forum are driving me to not only drink, but chug. Ugh.www.myspace.com0 -
Use the courts. Who knows if it would have been successful, but they didn't even try. These are people with first hand knowledge. They chose to leave that for the Senate trial and I think you and I would both be skeptical about how that's gonna go.tbergs said:
How were they supposed to do a better job of getting people to testify when the president openly told them not to?pjl44 said:And, yeah, the House does what they have to do regardless of what the Senate might do. They could have done a much better job in getting some testimony out in the open, but at least you're putting people on the record. I can't help but think if they had done a better job in the hearings, it puts Senate Republicans in a tighter spot to hold the line.0 -
2019
The republicans have been successful at getting a segment of the population to believe a separate set of alternative facts. My head was hurting this morning responding to this stuff.mrussel1 said:
1. Trump didn't care if he was investigated, he cared that it was announced on cable news that he was going to be investigated.tempo_n_groove said:
Trump wanted him investigated. Where does it say that he wanted foreign countries to interfere w the election? If that happened then I missed that.The Juggler said:
You have lost your mind.tempo_n_groove said:
You think it's common for presidents to call upon foreign leaders and essentially ask them to interfere in our election for their own personal benefit?The Juggler said:
It literally does not. Did you suffer a stroke? That's why hardly any republicans are agreeing with him that it was a "perfect call."tempo_n_groove said:
I would say that what he did goes on everyday in politics. The Dems are so hellbent at ousting him that they found their shot and took it and will fail miserably.josevolution said:
So because of that looming scenario you believe this should of never been done? In other words let him do what ever he wants since he is the president..Jason P said:
What I think is that this will get shot down in the Senate.mrussel1 said:
So you think what Trump did with Ukraine is either acceptable or standard presidential behavior?Jason P said:Well at least if Biden wins we will have a POTUS with an impeccable record and guarded public speaking that will in no way open himself up to the GOP using this as a precident to launch a similar show in a few years. Whew.
I tell you I am about fed up w politics and the lack of bipartisanship and please don't tell me it's all the rep fault. That is what IS wrong w politics.
You think it's common for presidents to call upon foreign leaders and essentially ask them to interfere in our election for their own personal benefit? And then hold up much needed aid until they do? And then block a lawfully investigation into such an act?
Ladies and gentlemen....welcome to the twilight zone.
What the fuck.
I have a problem with this because that is not what happened. Sorry, not buyng this for a second. You can imply that but that is not what happened.
2. We have laws on the books that provide a method for the DOJ to investigate the actions of US nationals in overseas dealings. This is the proper and lawful method to handle such situation.
3. The administration was withholding congressionally appropriated aid until the announcement took place. This aid was critical for the Ukrainian gov't to defend itself in an actual hot war.
I feel like you really didn't pay attention to this whole deal.www.myspace.com0 -
i woke up happy today. i am proud of the house for their efforts. except tulsi. is there a more spineless democrat than her? everyone took a stance and got on record as for constitution or for trump. except tulsi. what an embarrassment.
this may die in the senate. it may not. pelosi is under no obligation to deliver articles to the senate right now. if whistleblowers keep coming forward they may be able to impeach him again.
i really wish the mueller report 10 crimes were part of the articles."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
How many times have the words.. "If our Founding Framers where in this hall, what would they say?" been said since this started?
I personally think they would say something like..... "How did you get torches in the ceiling to make this light? or
"What's that Black Magic thing in your hand (phone)? or "Why are women and slaves in the chairs that belong to Congress MEN? " ---
Post edited by myoung321 on"The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera." - Yusuf Karsh
0 -
The case is in front of the SCOTUS now, as far as the extent of executive privilege. the Democrats did not want to wait for that to be resolved, which I think was the right call. If the House wins the case, they can always file the subpoenas at that point. I think it was the right call because the SCOTUS could kick it to the next term.pjl44 said:
Use the courts. Who knows if it would have been successful, but they didn't even try. These are people with first hand knowledge. They chose to leave that for the Senate trial and I think you and I would both be skeptical about how that's gonna go.tbergs said:
How were they supposed to do a better job of getting people to testify when the president openly told them not to?pjl44 said:And, yeah, the House does what they have to do regardless of what the Senate might do. They could have done a much better job in getting some testimony out in the open, but at least you're putting people on the record. I can't help but think if they had done a better job in the hearings, it puts Senate Republicans in a tighter spot to hold the line.0 -
And that's the really interesting thing about this. They don't even have a unified defense. Trump says it was "perfect", Mulvaney says quids are fine, Republicans (and Tempo) say it didn't happen, Guiliani came out yesterday and basically admitted it on cable news. So half the GOP is saying it's okay to do and the other half is saying it didn't happen.pjl44 said:
Shit, even Congressional Republicans acknowledge what he did. They take the angle of "hey, that's what foreign aid is for - to get other nations to work in your interests." Which obviously I have several issues with. But anyone arguing that that isn't even what happened is in a small circle at this point.mrussel1 said:
So you think through all of the witness testimonies, the texts, the Gordon Sundlands, it hasn't been proven that Trump demanded that the Uke gov't do this for the aid? WTF do you need as proof? A signed affidavit by Trump?tempo_n_groove said:
That is where the Quid Pro Quo would come in to play. That won't be proven either.mrussel1 said:
Okay, so using tax payer dollars to induce a foreign government to investigate someone you don't like isn't impeachable? That's a not a breach of the people's trust? That's pretty fucking corrupt.tempo_n_groove said:
I've said this before, Trump is vindictive and anyone that utters a bad word against him he goes after.mrussel1 said:
Trump made a calculation that Biden would be the candidate. So are you saying that it was happenstance that Biden is on his radar here? Are you saying that he is truly trying to root out corruption? If you don't see what I'm saying, how do you explain his behavior? Is it just a series of unfortunate events?tempo_n_groove said:
He would have multiple rivals in the upcoming election, is he going to have them all investigated? Having it tied to aid is not interfering with the upcoming election... It can be assumed or implied, that is it. It isn't cut and dry. So no.mrussel1 said:
You don't understand how asking a foreign gov't to launch a sham investigation into his most likely 2020 rival, and demanding it be done on television, while tying it to aid isn't attempting to interfere and corrupt the election? You don't see how he is using the power of the presidency to give himself an unfair advantage and leveraging OUR tax dollars to do it?
Again I'll ask because apparently I am "ignorant"...
No where do yo mention that Trump wanted other countries to interfere with an election.
That is what I am missing and you did too, but I'm ignorant?
Come now...
No I don't support Trump but the reach here is just that. Reaching.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me the evidence of where Trump asked for the election interference?
Not seeing how he used his presidency to "leverage" an advantage. No on that too.
Just not seeing it the way you all do which is interesting, if you dislike Trump, he's guilty. You like Trump, he's innocent.
I don't care for Trump but I think he is innocent.
I guess I'm in the center then...
That is how I see it.
Optics aren't good and I get that but too much hearsay and too much stretching by the dems for this.
Look if you think politics is all by the book then maybe we have a bigger problem. It's not. It's dirty and some are better than others at it.0 -
If you're sending it to a hostile Senate anyway, what's the advantage to rushing? He gets acquitted and you hope for a second go around?mrussel1 said:
The case is in front of the SCOTUS now, as far as the extent of executive privilege. the Democrats did not want to wait for that to be resolved, which I think was the right call. If the House wins the case, they can always file the subpoenas at that point. I think it was the right call because the SCOTUS could kick it to the next term.pjl44 said:
Use the courts. Who knows if it would have been successful, but they didn't even try. These are people with first hand knowledge. They chose to leave that for the Senate trial and I think you and I would both be skeptical about how that's gonna go.tbergs said:
How were they supposed to do a better job of getting people to testify when the president openly told them not to?pjl44 said:And, yeah, the House does what they have to do regardless of what the Senate might do. They could have done a much better job in getting some testimony out in the open, but at least you're putting people on the record. I can't help but think if they had done a better job in the hearings, it puts Senate Republicans in a tighter spot to hold the line.0 -
Pelosi had to be cognizant of having senators who are running for president being pinned down in the trial during Feb/Mar and beyond. That's peak primary season. The trial would run six days a week, leaving no time for Harris, Booker, Sanders, Klobuchar and Warren to campaign. I think the speedy process was influenced by that factor.pjl44 said:
If you're sending it to a hostile Senate anyway, what's the advantage to rushing? He gets acquitted and you hope for a second go around?mrussel1 said:
The case is in front of the SCOTUS now, as far as the extent of executive privilege. the Democrats did not want to wait for that to be resolved, which I think was the right call. If the House wins the case, they can always file the subpoenas at that point. I think it was the right call because the SCOTUS could kick it to the next term.pjl44 said:
Use the courts. Who knows if it would have been successful, but they didn't even try. These are people with first hand knowledge. They chose to leave that for the Senate trial and I think you and I would both be skeptical about how that's gonna go.tbergs said:
How were they supposed to do a better job of getting people to testify when the president openly told them not to?pjl44 said:And, yeah, the House does what they have to do regardless of what the Senate might do. They could have done a much better job in getting some testimony out in the open, but at least you're putting people on the record. I can't help but think if they had done a better job in the hearings, it puts Senate Republicans in a tighter spot to hold the line.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 279 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help