Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:36 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043

Those impeachment articles are weak, dude


Abuse of power and obstruction of justice? Even the Clinton impeachment articles were more specific than that. What President doesn't abuse his power or obstruct justice? They should have waited until they had something more specific and concrete. What has Trump done that is an unprecedented offense to the republic?
  #2  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:42 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,476
Using national security funds to extort a foreign country in order to interfere with the election...
  #3  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:50 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
Hopefully they get specific with that in the actual text of the articles.
  #4  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:53 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,476
I doubt it. I think they'll say "abuse of power" and when someone asks how he abused power they'll just throw their hands up and walk out of the room.
  #5  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:53 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,971
How about a link to the actual articles? That's something I haven't come up with yet- I just get Al Green's articles from this past summer.
  #6  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:56 AM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 13,279
Can't tell yet; all we have at the moment is a headline.
  #7  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:58 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
Yeah, you'd think the media would consider that important. They did think it was important enough to give us the full text of what Nancy Pelosi SAID about the impeachment articles, But not give us the text of the impeachment articles themselves.

Last edited by adaher; 12-10-2019 at 09:59 AM.
  #8  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:06 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
What has Trump done that is an unprecedented offense to the republic?
Pressured a foreign government to announce an investigation into his political rival. That's specifically bribery for the purpose of getting a foreign power to intervene in the US election.

Important point #1: Had there actually been an investigation into Hunter Biden, it might provide a veneer of law enforcement justification. But there is and was no investigation, because Trump didn't actually want an investigation, he wanted Ukraine's president to make an *announcement* of an investigation.

Important point #2: Yes, Ukraine eventually got the aid released. On September 11th. Curiously this was 2 days after the House started investigating the aid holdup on September 9th. It got released because Trump's "drug deal" got exposed.
  #9  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:09 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
I would prefer that there be an article that the President violated 18 USC 201, in addition to the others.
  #10  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:11 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Pressured a foreign government to announce an investigation into his political rival. That's specifically bribery for the purpose of getting a foreign power to intervene in the US election.

Important point #1: Had there actually been an investigation into Hunter Biden, it might provide a veneer of law enforcement justification. But there is and was no investigation, because Trump didn't actually want an investigation, he wanted Ukraine's president to make an *announcement* of an investigation.

Important point #2: Yes, Ukraine eventually got the aid released. On September 11th. Curiously this was 2 days after the House started investigating the aid holdup on September 9th. It got released because Trump's "drug deal" got exposed.
That sure sounds like an impeachable offense to me, but it also sounds like a specific violation of a couple of federal laws. I would hope they'd cite those specific violations in the articles. I'm not cool with a purely political impeachment based on their perception of what he did being wrong, rather than technically illegal.
  #11  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:29 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
They should have waited until they had something more specific and concrete.
I suspect that they wanted to do exactly that, but when the Ukraine bribery scandal hit, there was too much public pressure for them to ignore such an obvious crime.

Keep in mind that SCOTUS decisions are still in the pipeline for the Mazars subpoena (which gives Congress Trump's taxes), and DeutscheBank (which gives Congress info on Trump's Russian loans). That could get decided as early as this Friday Dec 13th, though it could run a couple more months.

Over the coming days, watch Republicans start emphasizing that Democrats are moving way too slow, and need to get this done ASAP. Watch the Dems pretend to agree and pretend to comply, while they keep delaying in hopes of getting those sweet sweet financial docs, which will be a total game-changer.

If they don't get those docs soon enough, nothing prevents Dems from drafting more impeachment articles when they eventually do get them. Of course it's political and public opinion, as it always is, but if we're talking about money laundering, fraud, and worse, the public could be persuaded.
  #12  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:36 AM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Yeah, you'd think the media would consider that important. They did think it was important enough to give us the full text of what Nancy Pelosi SAID about the impeachment articles, But not give us the text of the impeachment articles themselves.
I don't think the "Media" has any text to release yet, do they? They just reported on the announcement of the articles, which is all that's happened so far. I'm sure it'll be released some time today.

Man, we're an impatient lot.
  #13  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:37 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
That sure sounds like an impeachable offense to me, but it also sounds like a specific violation of a couple of federal laws. I would hope they'd cite those specific violations in the articles. I'm not cool with a purely political impeachment based on their perception of what he did being wrong, rather than technically illegal.
This is just a shell game though. If Dems name a statute, Repubs will just say this is a back-door way of criminally prosecuting the President, which is illegal. The framers provided a remedy for these shenanigans, which is to give Congress broad authority to define "high crimes and misdemeanors". This is what the American people voted for in 2018.
  #14  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:46 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
Oh I know Republicans will argue either way. If they cite something specific, it's a prosecution. If they are general, they say it's purely political.

Here's what I really think is going on though: citing a specific statute means Republicans can mount a specific defense, and there probably isn't enough evidence on any of his crimes to gain a conviction in a court of law. For all that the Clinton impeachment was politically motivated, they had him cold on perjury and suborning perjury.
  #15  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:53 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Yeah, you'd think the media would consider that important. They did think it was important enough to give us the full text of what Nancy Pelosi SAID about the impeachment articles, But not give us the text of the impeachment articles themselves.
The press can't release the text because the House hasn't yet released it. Don't let that minor detail stop you from having a merry swipe at the press, though.
  #16  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:02 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Here's what I really think is going on though: citing a specific statute means Republicans can mount a specific defense, and there probably isn't enough evidence on any of his crimes to gain a conviction in a court of law.
I think there probably is plenty of evidence of his crimes, but the President can't be prosecuted, so Republicans get the advantage of the delays provided by the criminal process, without any actual criminal exposure. Win/win for Republicans. More shenanigans.

Criminal and civil proceedings are rigorous and allow broad benefit of the doubt, because the outcome is possibly deprivation of life, liberty, and property.

Impeachment isn't like that. The worst that can happen is that you don't get to be president anymore. OTOH a bad president can do serious damage to the country and the millions of people in it. That's why it's appropriate for impeachment not to be anything like a criminal proceeding.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 12-10-2019 at 11:03 AM.
  #17  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:05 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,476
Text: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/de...mpeachment.pdf
  #18  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:08 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
I don't think the "Media" has any text to release yet, do they? They just reported on the announcement of the articles, which is all that's happened so far. I'm sure it'll be released some time today.

Man, we're an impatient lot.
Gotta start the hand-waving early.
  #19  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:09 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
What President doesn't abuse his power or obstruct justice? (...) What has Trump done that is an unprecedented offense to the republic?
Can you name a previous President who asked a foreign government for help in targeting a political rival?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
I doubt it. I think they'll say "abuse of power" and when someone asks how he abused power they'll just throw their hands up and walk out of the room.
I don't think any Democrats are going to be reluctant to talk about this issue.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 12-10-2019 at 11:11 AM.
  #20  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:13 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,638
This may be a bit of a hijack, but I’ve wondered why they haven’t charged certain individuals with Hatch Act violations. While it’s legal for the President and Vice-President to campaign for re-election during the course of their official duties, it’s not legal for his staff, aides and (I think) cabinet members to do so as part of their official taxpayer funded duties.

And this used to be taken very seriously. Kathleen Sebelius, while defending the ACA, once made a statement encouraging of Obama’s re-election. And she got into trouble for doing so. And to avoid being charged, she reimbursed the taxpayers for the entire cost of her attendance at the event, which was reclassified as a political event. Even then, some Republicans complained that she got off too easy. Those were the days.
  #21  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:14 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I don't think any Democrats are going to be reluctant to talk about this issue.
That's sarcasm in response to one of the dumbest fucking threads I've ever seen.
  #22  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:53 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
... I don't think any Democrats are going to be reluctant to talk about this issue.
Really? Even the ones in districts won by President Trump?
  #23  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:55 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
Basically they say he abused his power (Article 1) via the Ukraine business and obstructed Congress (Article II) by directing his people to disregard subpoenas and inquiries in direct opposition to the law.

Doesn't seem any more or less half-cooked than the articles drawn up for Clinton or Nixon.
  #24  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:02 PM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,956
Abuse of power and obstruction of justice is weak?

Jebus, if 43% of Americans think this way, then America is completely fraked.
  #25  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:07 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,955
Not nearly as weak as Republican arguments. To hear Minority Leader McCarthy talk, it was all hearsay and that the IG report proved that the FBI spied on Donald's campaign. Of course, Republicans get away with such lamebrained statements because their base is as dumb as a sack of hammers.
  #26  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:13 PM
DesertDog is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 6,057
Now, now. A sack of hammers is useful for some purposes. MAGAts, on the other hand...
  #27  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:29 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,245
Here they are: CNN link with text of Articles of Impeachment

Last edited by Oakminster; 12-10-2019 at 12:29 PM.
  #28  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:39 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,944
Those look pretty specific and concrete to me, but IANAL.

I'd say that the OP started this thread too early and lashed out based on a total lack of information. Why?
  #29  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:39 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,245
Having briefly read the articles, I'm concerned. I do not know, but I strongly suspect the Senate will hold a trial and then dismiss the articles, leaving Trump in office. Trump will almost certainly take that as more than a simple exoneration. I expect he will portray it as official endorsement and ratification of his actions, and future Presidents will see it as precedent allowing such conduct in the future.

Worse, the inevitable shit storm surrounding the trial is likely to fire up Trump's base and lead them to turn out in overwhelming numbers for the election, dooming the chances of whoever the Dems nominate.

This will not end well for anybody not in the Trump camp.
  #30  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:52 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Worse, the inevitable shit storm surrounding the trial is likely to fire up Trump's base and lead them to turn out in overwhelming numbers for the election, dooming the chances of whoever the Dems nominate.

This will not end well for anybody not in the Trump camp.
I don't share that fear. The Reich base is ALWAYS fired up and ALWAYS outraged. They ALWAYS vote, every single MAGAbot would crawl over broken glass and hot coals in the nude under barbed wire to vote a straight (R) ticket. Christ, they're fucking outraged that Barron's name was mentioned by a witness (THE HORROR!). Sure, they'll be outraged over the trial but they're fucking outraged by a tan suit. What I think this will do is emphasized the importance of the election and motivate Democrats to get off their asses and vote.
  #31  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:58 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Those look pretty specific and concrete to me, but IANAL.

I'd say that the OP started this thread too early and lashed out based on a total lack of information. Why?
Momentum.
  #32  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:03 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Having briefly read the articles, I'm concerned. I do not know, but I strongly suspect the Senate will hold a trial and then dismiss the articles, leaving Trump in office. Trump will almost certainly take that as more than a simple exoneration. I expect he will portray it as official endorsement and ratification of his actions, and future Presidents will see it as precedent allowing such conduct in the future.

Worse, the inevitable shit storm surrounding the trial is likely to fire up Trump's base and lead them to turn out in overwhelming numbers for the election, dooming the chances of whoever the Dems nominate.

This will not end well for anybody not in the Trump camp.
I have to agree with you on everything except the last bit; This is not going to end well for anybody in the entire country.

Cut to 2028: The President, who is a Democrat, sends a sack of taxpayer cash to Sri Lanka, in exchange for "documented evidence" that her chief Republican rival in the upcoming election is a satan-worshipper who murdered children. She then instructs the FBI to investigate, and come up with the exact conclusions she's written down. She forbids anyone to cooperate with any Republicans whatsoever. If Republicans complain - tough shit.

Last edited by Euphonious Polemic; 12-10-2019 at 01:06 PM.
  #33  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:06 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I don't share that fear. The Reich base is ALWAYS fired up and ALWAYS outraged. They ALWAYS vote, every single MAGAbot would crawl over broken glass and hot coals in the nude under barbed wire to vote a straight (R) ticket. Christ, they're fucking outraged that Barron's name was mentioned by a witness (THE HORROR!). Sure, they'll be outraged over the trial but they're fucking outraged by a tan suit. What I think this will do is emphasized the importance of the election and motivate Democrats to get off their asses and vote.
If the past 3 years have shown anything is that the MAGAcult membership is limited to ~63M. No more. No less.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #34  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:07 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
Abuse of power and obstruction of justice is weak?

Jebus, if 43% of Americans think this way, then America is completely fraked.
Oh, all Presidents abuse their power and obstruct justice, didn't you know? Both sides and all.
  #35  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:09 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,773
I see a serious problem with Article I
The Senate takes their role of jury vary seriously and will acquit based on specific words. With Clinton there was the issue over the use of the word "is" and with Johnson many Senators wanted to vote for acquittal since the "term" covered by the Tenure of Office Act ended when Lincoln died. So I see a valid reason to vote for acquittal by basing the article on the 2020 election and characterizing Joe Biden as a "political opponent". Remember he hasn't won the primary yet so is not Trump's opponent and is not (yet?) a candidate in the Presidential election.

It may be a pedantic reading of the situation but the Senate is 2 out of 2 in splitting hairs like that.
  #36  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:12 PM
Hermitian's Avatar
Hermitian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Having briefly read the articles, I'm concerned. I do not know, but I strongly suspect the Senate will hold a trial and then dismiss the articles, leaving Trump in office. Trump will almost certainly take that as more than a simple exoneration. I expect he will portray it as official endorsement and ratification of his actions, and future Presidents will see it as precedent allowing such conduct in the future.
Um. That was a given months ago. This is a new revelation?
  #37  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:13 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitian View Post
Um. That was a given months ago. This is a new revelation?
The Articles of Impeachment were not released months ago, so yes, this is, in fact, a new revelation.

Last edited by Oakminster; 12-10-2019 at 01:14 PM.
  #38  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:43 PM
Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
The Articles of Impeachment were not released months ago, so yes, this is, in fact, a new revelation.
I think he meant your speculation on Trump’s reaction.

Which actually brings my own question to mind: is the “official take” from the White House that he never did any of this, or that he did this and it’s okay? Because if it’s the former, that makes future Presidents trying to do so a little more complex than simply “Trump did it, so I’m fine.”
  #39  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:45 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
I think he meant your speculation on Trump’s reaction.

Which actually brings my own question to mind: is the “official take” from the White House that he never did any of this, or that he did this and it’s okay? Because if it’s the former, that makes future Presidents trying to do so a little more complex than simply “Trump did it, so I’m fine.”
I think his position is that he did nothing wrong. And if anything was wrong, it isn't impeachable. And Crooked Hillary. Blah blah blah.
  #40  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:47 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
Which actually brings my own question to mind: is the “official take” from the White House that he never did any of this, or that he did this and it’s okay? Because if it’s the former, that makes future Presidents trying to do so a little more complex than simply “Trump did it, so I’m fine.”
My understanding of the "official take" from the White House is you can't impeach after an election because the people have spoken, and you also cannot impeach before an election, because the people are about to speak. Also you cannot impeach when the economy is good, and also Obama is the one who really should be impeached here.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 12-10-2019 at 01:47 PM.
  #41  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:51 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I see a serious problem with Article I
The Senate takes their role of jury vary seriously and will acquit based on specific words. With Clinton there was the issue over the use of the word "is" and with Johnson many Senators wanted to vote for acquittal since the "term" covered by the Tenure of Office Act ended when Lincoln died. So I see a valid reason to vote for acquittal by basing the article on the 2020 election and characterizing Joe Biden as a "political opponent". Remember he hasn't won the primary yet so is not Trump's opponent and is not (yet?) a candidate in the Presidential election.

It may be a pedantic reading of the situation but the Senate is 2 out of 2 in splitting hairs like that.
Any Senators who sit there during the trial and say, "Well, on the one hand what Trump did was very, very wrong, but on the other hand Biden is not *technically* a political opponent so I'm going to acquit" are bad people.
  #42  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:53 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Having briefly read the articles, I'm concerned. I do not know, but I strongly suspect the Senate will hold a trial and then dismiss the articles, leaving Trump in office. Trump will almost certainly take that as more than a simple exoneration. I expect he will portray it as official endorsement and ratification of his actions, and future Presidents will see it as precedent allowing such conduct in the future.

Worse, the inevitable shit storm surrounding the trial is likely to fire up Trump's base and lead them to turn out in overwhelming numbers for the election, dooming the chances of whoever the Dems nominate.

This will not end well for anybody not in the Trump camp.
More than that it will not look good for Biden either. Regardless of what Trump did wrong having the son of a sitting Vice President get rich off of foreign business deals with a country as entangled as Ukraine when his only qualification was getting kicked out of the Navy for cocaine does not look good. If Trump were smarter he would have just saved that for the campaign ads. And Joe is not handling it well as it is.

https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com...ualifying.html
  #43  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:56 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Any Senators who sit there during the trial and say, "Well, on the one hand what Trump did was very, very wrong, but on the other hand Biden is not *technically* a political opponent so I'm going to acquit" are bad people.
I think the outcome is as predetermined as Wrestlemania. Most Senators, at least on the GOP side, already know they're going to vote to acquit. Some may quibble with the rationale, but they never really have to say anything beyond something like "I don't think the evidence was sufficient to remove him from office."
  #44  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:06 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
I think the outcome is as predetermined as Wrestlemania. Most Senators, at least on the GOP side, already know they're going to vote to acquit. Some may quibble with the rationale, but they never really have to say anything beyond something like "I don't think the evidence was sufficient to remove him from office."
2/3 is a purposely difficult bar to hurdle. No one, including Trump, was more deserving of the boot than Andrew Johnson and they couldn’t even get rid of him.
  #45  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:11 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
More than that it will not look good for Biden either. Regardless of what Trump did wrong having the son of a sitting Vice President get rich off of foreign business deals with a country as entangled as Ukraine when his only qualification was getting kicked out of the Navy for cocaine does not look good. If Trump were smarter he would have just saved that for the campaign ads. And Joe is not handling it well as it is.

https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com...ualifying.html
Hunter Biden's life seems to consist of an almost-endless array of bad decisions. I suspect President Trump realized that he'll almost certainly produce additional material for his campaign ads between now and the commencement of the general election season.
  #46  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:16 PM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I see a serious problem with Article I
The Senate takes their role of jury vary seriously and will acquit based on specific words. With Clinton there was the issue over the use of the word "is" and with Johnson many Senators wanted to vote for acquittal since the "term" covered by the Tenure of Office Act ended when Lincoln died. So I see a valid reason to vote for acquittal by basing the article on the 2020 election and characterizing Joe Biden as a "political opponent". Remember he hasn't won the primary yet so is not Trump's opponent and is not (yet?) a candidate in the Presidential election.

It may be a pedantic reading of the situation but the Senate is 2 out of 2 in splitting hairs like that.
There are exactly 0 Senators for which that would matter. Republicans might use that as a fig leaf excuse, but the real reason they'll acquit is because he's their leader and "fuck you, that's why."
  #47  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:19 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
2/3 is a purposely difficult bar to hurdle. No one, including Trump, was more deserving of the boot than Andrew Johnson and they couldn’t even get rid of him.
Johnson was an exceptionally poor President, without question. But the articles of impeachment against him were utterly ridiculous. That was the one and only true political impeachment we've seen.
  #48  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:23 PM
sciurophobic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring
Posts: 1,714
Can the President ignore the will of Congress? That is fundamentally what the charges are about. Does Congress have the power of the purse, or does it not? Does Congress have the power to investigate, or does it not? The Senate will be forced to choose between upholding over two centuries of its own authority and being nothing more than a President's lapdog.
  #49  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:27 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Johnson was an exceptionally poor President, without question. But the articles of impeachment against him were utterly ridiculous. That was the one and only true political impeachment we've seen.
Johnson fucked the country for the next century or more with how he purposely mishandled Reconstruction. Trump is going to be a blip in history by comparison.
  #50  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:31 PM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Johnson fucked the country for the next century or more with how he purposely mishandled Reconstruction. Trump is going to be a blip in history by comparison.
Probably, but the complete abandonment of rule of law or pretense of caring about ethics or fact could be the start of a very bad path. If Trump just loses re-election, sure, blip. If Trump wins and then the GOP starts down a road to enshrine themselves permanently because they can't win with the demographic shifts... that could be dark.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017