What's new

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

I do not think the prosecution has proved their case enough to impeach. Not at this point.

Impeachment should be a high bar. That bar has not been met.

I think the House Dems should have allowed their subpoenas to go to the supreme court. They seem to have the attitude that they could pass impeachment so that was good enough. I feel like they should have demanded all the evidence and witnesses possible and let the Supreme Court have the final word on what would be allowed or not.

They failed to do that.

The Senate has little to work with. It's not enough to impeach. It just isn't.

This is over. Time for the 2020 election.

Any functioning adult is getting my vote.


Is your Democratic Party really so stupid to be pursuing this course of action ?? This is all playing into his hands and he’s going to go to town portraying himself as a victim.

They should be focussed on presenting the best possible viable candidate and providing a clear choice against Donald but all this is muddying the waters and doing nothing but ensuring we are lumped with Trump for another term. Thanks very much.
 
This is incredible.





who here supports this? Is repubs want to set this precedent, what becomes of our democracy? Can President Warren threaten nuclear war with China unless they smear her opponent? Can president Sanders Derain all white Repubs in key swing states from voting? Can president Biden offer people money and favors for votes?
 
Do you really think we SHOULD get over Hitler? I mean, seriously?

I actually read recently that over 50% of Americans don't know how many people died in the Nazi concentration camps or that Hitler was legally appointed chancellor and then president when the former president died, all perfectly legally.
I get it. If the Republicans bring up anything that previously happened it is because they are stuck in the past. If the Dems bring up anything it is because they are students of history. Seems reasonable.
 
It’s at least once per show Hannity brings up that flexibility thing without context. It’s quite amazing. That and the, “they cling to their guns and religion” bit. Such a simple show.
It's interesting that Thriller, who supposedly never watches Hannity, knows far more about what's on Hannity than the person who Thriller claims watches nothing but Hannity.
 
It's interesting that Thriller, who supposedly never watches Hannity, knows far more about what's on Hannity than the person who Thriller claims watches nothing but Hannity.
I have seen thriller comment plenty of times things that he has heard on hannity. I have never been under the impression that he doesn't listen to hannity. He seems to be into all things political to me.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
This is incredible.





who here supports this? Is repubs want to set this precedent, what becomes of our democracy? Can President Warren threaten nuclear war with China unless they smear her opponent? Can president Sanders Derain all white Repubs in key swing states from voting? Can president Biden offer people money and favors for votes?



This was after Philbin argued that it was impossible for a President to take an action in contravention of US foreign policy ... because anything the President wants to do constitutes official US foreign policy. Some real emperor ****.
 
I have seen thriller comment plenty of times things that he has heard on hannity. I have never been under the impression that he doesn't listen to hannity. He seems to be into all things political to me.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

He probably watches Hannity so he can fume, rock back and forth in his chair while bitterly mumbling “partisan hack” for a solid hour straight
 
Yeah, me neither, but you can't always interpret tone from written communications. Maybe everyone just misread you. It's all good-- I get your meaning.

You (and Republican voters in general) are certainly entitled to feel the way you do-- I can respect why you might, and felt similarly defensive about the unrelenting refusal by Republican lawmakers to work with Obama during his tenure. Even today, my knee-jerk reaction to most of the stuff still said about him by Republicans is that much of the venom comes from people who are uneducated, racist, etc. It's not fair for me to immediately cast presumably good people into those sorts of categories, and I like to think I ultimately bridle that instinct well, but that's how little sense their comments make to me on the surface. Most of my family falls into that camp, actually. It illustrates the giant divides between how people think in this country, and I believe the bitterness comes mainly from the inability of people to put their initial feelings/thoughts aside in the spirit of figuring sh** out for the betterment of everyone. It's really too bad.

This angle you've described-- it's interesting to think about, isn't it? I don't know, honestly, if charges like those brought against Trump weren't brought against Obama, for example, simply because Republicans didn't believe his alleged misconduct merited impeachment. You could be right. It also seems possible to me they considered some of his actions impeachable, but just lacked the courage/audacity/whatever to push the charges forward the way the Democrats have with Trump. The political environment may have been such they didn't feel encouraged by the idea of doing it-- that they perhaps stood to lose too much by doing so. I'm really stretching into hypotheticals here, because I just don't know. All I can say for certain is I am unconvinced that the charges against Trump are somehow baseless, or fall short of what the Founders might have considered impeachable. It is a little too convenient for me to swallow that there were identical concerns about Obama, and Republicans didn't take action on those equal charges because they weren't worthy of impeachment. That just feels like a somewhat thinly-veiled attempt to dismiss this whole thing with a sound bite. Despite my personal distaste for Trump, though, I am earnestly trying to remain objective, learn more from both the House Managers and Trump's defense team, and remain open so that my reasons are NOT solely partisan. I would really like to hear from witnesses and see actual evidence allowed in these hearings (I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation why none of this has been allowed), and would happily be convinced otherwise by it.
I appreciate your honesty in sharing your knee-jerk reactions to Republican arguments. And I have even greater respect for your ability and willingness to look beyond those reactions in order to understand why some people see things differently than you.

I found the specific argument I was talking about when we began this discussion. It begins at the 35 minute mark but the core of it goes from about 37:30 to about 42:15. I would be very interested in hearing your (and other people's) reactions to it.
 
Or, you know, the Senate could actually hold a trial and allow the House managers to call witnesses...

But anyway I completely disagree. Even without any additional witnesses the case against Trump is overwhelming.
Well if I'm in the Senate I'm voting to convict, but I can completely understand how pretty much all of the Republican Senators are going to find justifications for their acquittal votes. They needed to be presented with a much stronger case to essentially give them no other option than conviction. What I'm saying is that hasn't happened.

And as far as the Senate calling witnesses and getting documents, well we all knew the Senate had a Republican majority, so the House should have let their subpoenas be upheld by the Supreme Court. I'm sure many of them would have been upheld. They should have held out and gathered all the evidence possible so that the Senate wouldn't have an easy out to acquit, which they currently have. It'll be a much easier decision for Republican Senators to acquit vs convict. I'm sure Romney would love to have been presented with a rock solid case that he could use to justify a conviction, but I'm guessing even he will vote to acquit.
 
Which is impeachable.
Isn't this in and of itself impeachable?

I agree with you, but that's exactly what Trump's defense team is basing their case on: That none of that is impeachable, and then shoring up the notion this is purely a partisan issue. And it's not like they're idiots-- they have plenty of credible historical examples, quotes from constitutional scholars, etc. They're doing what any good defense attorney does: Muddying the water enough that the decision doesn't look like it can be made objectively.
 
Back
Top