Impeach Trump!

[93henfan]

It's settled:

[AZGrizFan]

What a minute. Libs have been saying we need be more like those countries, especially the Nordic ones. Now, they're suddenly "Conservative"?


Am I missing something?!

Yes you are. Look at the most at risk nations in that map...the Baltics, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and two of the most conservative nations in Europe: Spain and Italy. The UK takes a turn right, and they're in the red too.

The Nordic nations are not conservative.

So the recent move to the right is now responsible for a long history of unemployment, poverty and economic strife in those countries? Is that what you're now implying?

[kalm]

It's settled:

[kalm]

So is Eastern Washington.

And you say it's the most beautiful place on Earth.

I don’t think I said it’s the most but it’s pretty damn sweet from where I sit.

Why?

[BDKJMU]

It's settled:

They’ve already had witnesses. 17 of them.

[Skjellyfetti]

The poll says "impeachment trial."

The impeachment trial has had 0 witnesses.

[CitadelGrad]

Cocaine Mitch is missing a real opportunity by refusing to have witnesses. Just think how much fun the GOP senators could have with Ciaramella, Misko, Hunter & Joe, Schiff, members of Schiff's staff and Vindman -- and that's just for starters.

[SDHornet]

It's settled:

They’ve already had witnesses. 17 of them.

You mean 18. AG Atkinson's testimony has been concealed by Schiff.

[SDHornet]

Cocaine Mitch is missing a real opportunity by refusing to have witnesses. Just think how much fun the GOP senators could have with Ciaramella, Misko, Hunter & Joe, Schiff, members of Schiff's staff and Vindman -- and that's just for starters.

The House can get all these guys on record during the next impeachment attempt.

[kalm]

Cocaine Mitch is missing a real opportunity by refusing to have witnesses. Just think how much fun the GOP senators could have with Ciaramella, Misko, Hunter & Joe, Schiff, members of Schiff's staff and Vindman -- and that's just for starters.

The House can get all these guys on record during the next impeachment attempt.

Can they re-open impeachment proceedings in the house based on new evidence? I assume they can file new articles and proceedings right up to the election.

Conventional wisdom says it would be political suicide for the Dems but ironically not much different than the R’s stalling SCOTUS appointments with Obama. R’s have the stones to get away with that shit.

In the off chance it were to happen, enter Bloomberg as a 3rd party candidate capitalizing on voter fatigue with both parties.

[Ibanez]

The House can get all these guys on record during the next impeachment attempt.

Can they re-open impeachment proceedings in the house based on new evidence? I assume they can file new articles and proceedings right up to the election.

Conventional wisdom says it would be political suicide for the Dems but ironically not much different than the R’s stalling SCOTUS appointments with Obama. R’s have the stones to get away with that shit.

In the off chance it were to happen, enter Bloomberg as a 3rd party candidate capitalizing on voter fatigue with both parties.

That'd be suicide. The Democrats should've slow-walked this. They should've gone after Bolton and Mulvaney and gotten them on the record.

All so the Republicans can acquit.

I'm actually more worried about the precedent that Dershowtiz' argument will set. IF you think having a foreign government intervene in our election against your opponent is in the best interest of the US then it's perfectly fine. That's some dangerous precedent setting there, IMO.

[kalm]

Can they re-open impeachment proceedings in the house based on new evidence? I assume they can file new articles and proceedings right up to the election.

Conventional wisdom says it would be political suicide for the Dems but ironically not much different than the R’s stalling SCOTUS appointments with Obama. R’s have the stones to get away with that shit.

In the off chance it were to happen, enter Bloomberg as a 3rd party candidate capitalizing on voter fatigue with both parties.

That'd be suicide. The Democrats should've slow-walked this. They should've gone after Bolton and Mulvaney and gotten them on the record.

All so the Republicans can acquit.

I'm actually more worried about the precedent that Dershowtiz' argument will set. IF you think having a foreign government intervene in our election against your opponent is in the best interest of the US then it's perfectly fine. That's some dangerous precedent setting there, IMO.

Agreed. Part of me thinks that it might benefit the Dems at this point for the Senate to rule on no witnesses and quickly acquit.

[Ibanez]

That'd be suicide. The Democrats should've slow-walked this. They should've gone after Bolton and Mulvaney and gotten them on the record.

All so the Republicans can acquit.

I'm actually more worried about the precedent that Dershowtiz' argument will set. IF you think having a foreign government intervene in our election against your opponent is in the best interest of the US then it's perfectly fine. That's some dangerous precedent setting there, IMO.

Agreed. Part of me thinks that it might benefit the Dems at this point for the Senate to rule on no witnesses and quickly acquit.

Yep. I tried to explain this to my MAGA brothers last night. They sound like BDK and Citgrad.

The Dems should have 1 vote for witnesses then move on. He'll get acquitted and then we can get onto the business of the country. Beat him at the ballot box (which won't happen).

But you can be damn sure the Democrats will be waiting for something to happen and I would put good odds on them trying to impeach him again.

[kalm]

Agreed. Part of me thinks that it might benefit the Dems at this point for the Senate to rule on no witnesses and quickly acquit.

Yep. I tried to explain this to my MAGA brothers last night. They sound like BDK and Citgrad.

The Dems should have 1 vote for witnesses then move on. He'll get acquitted and then we can get onto the business of the country. Beat him at the ballot box (which won't happen).

But you can be damn sure the Democrats will be waiting for something to happen and I would put good odds on them trying to impeach him again.

The Dem campaign narrative would be: Everyone knows he was guilty and the Republican Senators provided further obstruction by not allowing witnesses and covering up for Trump.

[CAA Flagship]

I'm actually more worried about the precedent that Dershowtiz' argument will set.

I'm finding the spin and legal angles of both sides interesting. It's like I come to some sort of agreement each time each side speaks.

I thought Dershowitz's argument about the timing was interesting. He said that if he had done this early in his second term, this would be a non issue since the "personal gain" and "election" would not play a factor. But in the end, it is the election (political opponent) that IS the issue.

That being said, there is still no investigation, no announcement of an investigation, and the aid was released within the required timeframe.

[Ibanez]

Yep. I tried to explain this to my MAGA brothers last night. They sound like BDK and Citgrad.

The Dems should have 1 vote for witnesses then move on. He'll get acquitted and then we can get onto the business of the country. Beat him at the ballot box (which won't happen).

But you can be damn sure the Democrats will be waiting for something to happen and I would put good odds on them trying to impeach him again.

The Dem campaign narrative would be: Everyone knows he was guilty and the Republican Senators provided further obstruction by not allowing witnesses and covering up for Trump.

The Republican argument has shifted from nothing happened to if it happened it's not impeachable to yes it happened but it still isn't impeachable.

Give it a few more days and both sides will be ready to remove him.

[Skjellyfetti]

That being said, there is still no investigation, no announcement of an investigation, and the aid was released within the required timeframe.

Doesn't matter.

Blagojevich didn't appoint anyone to the Senate before he was arrested and charged with using his office for personal gain.

[Ibanez]

I'm actually more worried about the precedent that Dershowtiz' argument will set.

I'm finding the spin and legal angles of both sides interesting. It's like I come to some sort of agreement each time each side speaks.

I thought Dershowitz's argument about the timing was interesting. He said that if he had done this early in his second term, this would be a non issue since the "personal gain" and "election" would not play a factor. But in the end, it is the election (political opponent) that IS the issue.

That being said, there is still no investigation, no announcement of an investigation, and the aid was released within the required timeframe.

I don't buy that last bit. That's like saying it wasn't it wasn't bribery if the bribe was never taken. John Hinckley Jr. shouldn't have been arrested and convicted. He failed to kill Reagan.

[89Hen]

Conventional wisdom says it would be political suicide for the Dems but ironically not much different than the R’s stalling SCOTUS appointments with Obama. R’s have the stones to get away with that shit.

Isn't it actually the opposite of what the R's did with the SCOTUS? They sold it as let the voters decide in November and what the D's are doing is trying to decide for the voters before then. Am I wrong here?

[Ibanez]

Conventional wisdom says it would be political suicide for the Dems but ironically not much different than the R’s stalling SCOTUS appointments with Obama. R’s have the stones to get away with that shit.

Isn't it actually the opposite of what the R's did with the SCOTUS? They sold it as let the voters decide in November and what the D's are doing is trying to decide for the voters before then. Am I wrong here?

Neither have anything to do with the voters. It's about winning one for the party and not what is best for the country or the institutions.

[89Hen]

Isn't it actually the opposite of what the R's did with the SCOTUS? They sold it as let the voters decide in November and what the D's are doing is trying to decide for the voters before then. Am I wrong here?

Neither have anything to do with the voters. It's about winning one for the party and not what is best for the country or the institutions.

Correct, but notice I said "they sold it". You can't possibly spin this impeachment as that.

[Skjellyfetti]

Conventional wisdom says it would be political suicide for the Dems but ironically not much different than the R’s stalling SCOTUS appointments with Obama. R’s have the stones to get away with that shit.

Isn't it actually the opposite of what the R's did with the SCOTUS? They sold it as let the voters decide in November and what the D's are doing is trying to decide for the voters before then. Am I wrong here?

The Constitution doesn't say it's for the voters to decide on impeachments or filling SCOTUS seats.

You know, the ole "we're a republic, not a democracy."

[kalm]

Conventional wisdom says it would be political suicide for the Dems but ironically not much different than the R’s stalling SCOTUS appointments with Obama. R’s have the stones to get away with that shit.

Isn't it actually the opposite of what the R's did with the SCOTUS? They sold it as let the voters decide in November and what the D's are doing is trying to decide for the voters before then. Am I wrong here?

No, you’re not necessarily wrong and I thought about that too. But the voters aren’t charged with the duty of prosecution or selecting Supreme Court justices.

[89Hen]

Correct all around, but that's still a big difference.

[∞∞∞]

Isn't it actually the opposite of what the R's did with the SCOTUS? They sold it as let the voters decide in November and what the D's are doing is trying to decide for the voters before then. Am I wrong here?

The Constitution doesn't say it's for the voters to decide on impeachments or filling SCOTUS seats.

You know, the ole "we're a republic, not a democracy."

Agreed. This "we must let the voters decide" doesn't make sense if we're going to have a Republic. What's the point of a representative then? The Democrats also ran on a platform that they'll impeach the President...so their voters literally decided that's what they want by sending them to Congress.

I would have been pissed if my representative didn't follow through.