Impeach Trump!

[houndawg]

As noted it will be particularly bad for the Republicans if there are no witnesses then Bolton's book says some damaging things. Hard to say if that would happen though because Bolton's book has to go through a process of being vetted for "national security" stuff. With the corrupt Administration in place stuff about Trump doing what he did could be ruled classified, etc. Unfortunately we are in a time when we cannot rely upon anybody in the Executive Branch to act in an ethical way. I realize that it may be like that to some extent at any time. But it's particularly bad right now. We have what I think is the most corrupt Administration of my lifetime in place.

Why didn't Nancy subpoena Bolton?

Answer that, and you understand why its a big nothingburger. Donks with egg on their faces again.

Because she didn't need to

How about the way she's turned this thing around? She's like LeBron playing against some high school's JV team.

[kalm]

I am totally anti-unitary.

I didn't know you knew Quantum Mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiunitary_operator

I didn’t either.

[houndawg]

Obstruction was enough to pursue impeachment against Nixon. And Clinton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This obstruction charge is one of the most “trumped” up ones I have ever seen. If Trump is guilty of obstruction in this case then so is every President who has ever claimed executive privilege. In fact, the House had the option of issuing subpoenas to all witnesses and chose not to. If they had, then they couldn’t have their obstruction article. It is a completely unnecessary own-goal by the House.

If Trump is guilty of something in this area it is for not sending Nancy Pelosi a gilded hand signed letter claiming privilege with liberal use of the word “madam”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As in "Madam President"

[Ibanez]

Obstruction was enough to pursue impeachment against Nixon. And Clinton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This obstruction charge is one of the most “trumped” up ones I have ever seen. If Trump is guilty of obstruction in this case then so is every President who has ever claimed executive privilege. In fact, the House had the option of issuing subpoenas to all witnesses and chose not to. If they had, then they couldn’t have their obstruction article. It is a completely unnecessary own-goal by the House.

If Trump is guilty of something in this area it is for not sending Nancy Pelosi a gilded hand signed letter claiming privilege with liberal use of the word “madam”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To a certain extent, I agree. But i'm just saying, the Republican defense that obstruction isn't impeachable is BS since they used is 20+ years ago since Clinton.

[CAA Flagship]

This obstruction charge is one of the most “trumped” up ones I have ever seen. If Trump is guilty of obstruction in this case then so is every President who has ever claimed executive privilege. In fact, the House had the option of issuing subpoenas to all witnesses and chose not to. If they had, then they couldn’t have their obstruction article. It is a completely unnecessary own-goal by the House.

If Trump is guilty of something in this area it is for not sending Nancy Pelosi a gilded hand signed letter claiming privilege with liberal use of the word “madam”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To a certain extent, I agree. But i'm just saying, the Republican defense that obstruction isn't impeachable is BS since they used is 20+ years ago since Clinton.

And Clinton finished his term.

[GannonFan]

What's Bolton going to say? Again, we already know everything, we know Trump wanted to hold up the money until the Burisma and Biden connection was looked into. Bolton would just confirm what we already know. We're in the theater part of this now, if we weren't already. Does this conduct warrant removal from office or not? That's all that needs to be answered right now. Most are going to vote not. Bring on the November elections.

Obstruction was enough to pursue impeachment against Nixon. And Clinton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not entirely true. In the Nixon, Clinton, or the Trump impeachments, they never would've impeached simply on the obstruction. The obstruction is just filler that gets added in to flesh the impeachment out a little bit. But in every case, there was a meatier impeachment article that was there: with Nixon, the obstruction charge was actually obstruction of justice, since they were interfering with the police investigation into the break-in, and then there was the abuse of power charge, which was legit in that one as they were wiretapping people secretly, using the IRS to harass people, and again, getting in the way of the investigation by the FBI and non-Congress sorts. Clinton's was easy because he lied to a grand jury and tried to get others to lie as well. Again, in both cases, obstruction of Congress was simply one to add on. They never would've impeached any of these three Presidents on just the obstruction of Congress charge.

[AZGrizFan]

I didn't know you knew Quantum Mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiunitary_operator

I didn’t either.

[AZGrizFan]

Why didn't Nancy subpoena Bolton?

Answer that, and you understand why its a big nothingburger. Donks with egg on their faces again.

Because she didn't need to

How about the way she's turned this thing around? She's like LeBron playing against some high school's JV team.

Oh yeah. This whole thing just makes the donks look like geniuses.

It's been one big education session...

[Ibanez]

To a certain extent, I agree. But i'm just saying, the Republican defense that obstruction isn't impeachable is BS since they used is 20+ years ago since Clinton.

And Clinton finished his term.

Yup. Clinton also manned up and admitted his mistake.

[GannonFan]

And Clinton finished his term.

Yup. Clinton also manned up and admitted his mistake.

I don't recall him saying that he should've been impeached.

[89Hen]

And Clinton finished his term.

Yup. Clinton also manned up and admitted his mistake.

[kalm]

I didn’t either.

Thank you, Z!

At least one of you assholes gets me.

[Ibanez]

Yup. Clinton also manned up and admitted his mistake.

I don't recall him saying that he should've been impeached.

I don't recall that either. I do recall him apologizing.

[Ibanez]

Yup. Clinton also manned up and admitted his mistake.

Believing him is one thing. But he did. It was a video.

[89Hen]

Believing him is one thing. But he did. It was a video.

I can only assume you're talking about the video of him addressing the country on August 21, 1998 after he had to testify to the grand jury and admit he had relations with "that woman, Ms Lewinski" dating back to 1995.

I'm laughing because there was nothing left to do but "man up".

[CAA Flagship]

And Clinton finished his term.

Yup. Clinton also manned up and admitted his mistake.

You are missing the point in your statement. You said "the Republican defense that obstruction isn't impeachable is BS since they used is 20+ years ago since Clinton."
It didn't work 20 years ago. If it wasn't impeachable with Clinton, why would it be impeachable now?

[Ibanez]

Yup. Clinton also manned up and admitted his mistake.

You are missing the point in your statement. You said "the Republican defense that obstruction isn't impeachable is BS since they used is 20+ years ago since Clinton."
It didn't work 20 years ago. If it wasn't impeachable with Clinton, why would it be impeachable now?

Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. He wasn't removed.

And it would matter now because it was the Republicans that used Obstruction as an impeachable offense 20 years ago.

The hypocrisy here shouldn't be alarming to anyone.

That's another problem i've had with the White House defense. They keep saying these aren't impeachable offenses even though the precedent has been set and 2 presidents have been impeached for obstruction of justice and obstruction of congress. They're language is inaccurate. It's impeachable but is it grounds for removal?

[Ibanez]

Believing him is one thing. But he did. It was a video.

I can only assume you're talking about the video of him addressing the country on August 21, 1998 after he had to testify to the grand jury and admit he had relations with "that woman, Ms Lewinski" dating back to 1995.

I'm laughing because there was nothing left to do but "man up".

No. December 11, 1998.

"What I want the American people to know, what I want the Congress to know, is that I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds," Clinton said in the clip. "I never should have misled the country, the Congress, my friends or my family. Quite simply, I gave in to my shame."

[CAA Flagship]

You are missing the point in your statement. You said "the Republican defense that obstruction isn't impeachable is BS since they used is 20+ years ago since Clinton."
It didn't work 20 years ago. If it wasn't impeachable with Clinton, why would it be impeachable now?

Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. He wasn't removed.

And it would matter now because it was the Republicans that used Obstruction as an impeachable offense 20 years ago.

The hypocrisy here shouldn't be alarming to anyone.

Meh. "Impeachment" means nothing unless the Senate goes along with it and the POTUS is removed from office. The Dems didn't allow it to pass in the Senate with Clinton. But they are using the same path this time around. Why isn't it BS for the Dems?

One could argue that the Republicans saw how obstruction wasn't enough during the Clinton ordeal, and are employing that logic here.

Bottom line is the BS can be argued, and defended, towards both sides, not just at the Republicans.

[89Hen]

I can only assume you're talking about the video of him addressing the country on August 21, 1998 after he had to testify to the grand jury and admit he had relations with "that woman, Ms Lewinski" dating back to 1995.

I'm laughing because there was nothing left to do but "man up".

No. December 11, 1998.

"What I want the American people to know, what I want the Congress to know, is that I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds," Clinton said in the clip. "I never should have misled the country, the Congress, my friends or my family. Quite simply, I gave in to my shame."

That aint manning up in my book.

[Winterborn]

Thank you, Z!

At least one of you assholes gets me.

I was afraid to ask and find out.

Spoiler: show

Schrodinger's Cat reference for all you none nerds.

[CID1990]

You are missing the point in your statement. You said "the Republican defense that obstruction isn't impeachable is BS since they used is 20+ years ago since Clinton."
It didn't work 20 years ago. If it wasn't impeachable with Clinton, why would it be impeachable now?

Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. He wasn't removed.

And it would matter now because it was the Republicans that used Obstruction as an impeachable offense 20 years ago.

The hypocrisy here shouldn't be alarming to anyone.

That's another problem i've had with the White House defense. They keep saying these aren't impeachable offenses even though the precedent has been set and 2 presidents have been impeached for obstruction of justice and obstruction of congress. They're language is inaccurate. It's impeachable but is it grounds for removal?

All of this is moot given that there is no obstruction of justice in this case

The other article is legitimate and deserves examination but the obstruction article should be dismissed. Including it at all has diminished the House’s position and leaves room for Republicans to dismiss the whole thing.

A few years from now when most of the passions have subsided we will see legal scholars making this same point on obstruction


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

You are missing the point in your statement. You said "the Republican defense that obstruction isn't impeachable is BS since they used is 20+ years ago since Clinton."
It didn't work 20 years ago. If it wasn't impeachable with Clinton, why would it be impeachable now?

Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. He wasn't removed.

And it would matter now because it was the Republicans that used Obstruction as an impeachable offense 20 years ago.

The hypocrisy here shouldn't be alarming to anyone.

That's another problem i've had with the White House defense. They keep saying these aren't impeachable offenses even though the precedent has been set and 2 presidents have been impeached for obstruction of justice and obstruction of congress. They're language is inaccurate. It's impeachable but is it grounds for removal?

What POTUS hasn’t obstructed Congress in some way or another (when controlled by the opposite party)?

[kalm]

Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. He wasn't removed.

And it would matter now because it was the Republicans that used Obstruction as an impeachable offense 20 years ago.

The hypocrisy here shouldn't be alarming to anyone.

That's another problem i've had with the White House defense. They keep saying these aren't impeachable offenses even though the precedent has been set and 2 presidents have been impeached for obstruction of justice and obstruction of congress. They're language is inaccurate. It's impeachable but is it grounds for removal?

What POTUS hasn’t obstructed Congress in some way or another (when controlled by the opposite party)?

Sure.

So obstruct away at hearts content!

[kalm]

Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. He wasn't removed.

And it would matter now because it was the Republicans that used Obstruction as an impeachable offense 20 years ago.

The hypocrisy here shouldn't be alarming to anyone.

That's another problem i've had with the White House defense. They keep saying these aren't impeachable offenses even though the precedent has been set and 2 presidents have been impeached for obstruction of justice and obstruction of congress. They're language is inaccurate. It's impeachable but is it grounds for removal?

All of this is moot given that there is no obstruction of justice in this case

The other article is legitimate and deserves examination but the obstruction article should be dismissed. Including it at all has diminished the House’s position and leaves room for Republicans to dismiss the whole thing.

A few years from now when most of the passions have subsided we will see legal scholars making this same point on obstruction


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably true. White collar crime is squishy and tough to prosecute.