# Those impeachment articles are weak, dude **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 10, 2019, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647 "2019-12-10T14:36:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/21 "2019-12-10T16:14:11Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/22 "2019-12-10T16:53:18Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > … 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? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/23 "2019-12-10T16:55:06Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > Text: [https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/Articles%20of%20Impeachment.pdf](https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/Articles%20of%20Impeachment.pdf) 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. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/24 "2019-12-10T17:02:41Z")
Abuse of power and obstruction of justice is weak? Jebus, if 43% of Americans think this way, then America is completely fraked. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/25 "2019-12-10T17:07:06Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/26 "2019-12-10T17:13:16Z")
Now, now. A sack of hammers is useful for some purposes. MAGAts, on the other hand… ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/27 "2019-12-10T17:29:03Z")
Here they are: [CNN link with text of Articles of Impeachment](https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/politics/articles-impeachment-trump/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/28 "2019-12-10T17:39:14Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/29 "2019-12-10T17:39:46Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/30 "2019-12-10T17:52:39Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/31 "2019-12-10T17:58:09Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/32 "2019-12-10T18:03:13Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/33 "2019-12-10T18:06:44Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/34 "2019-12-10T18:07:58Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/35 "2019-12-10T18:09:12Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Hermitian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hermitian/32/470_2.png) [@Hermitian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermitian)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/36 "2019-12-10T18:12:18Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/37 "2019-12-10T18:13:45Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/38 "2019-12-10T18:43:07Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/39 "2019-12-10T18:45:22Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/40 "2019-12-10T18:47:02Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647.md?page=3)