*****Official Trump 2020 House impeachment thread*****

[Ephedra]

Anybody have the count of TV viewers for this thing?

[scheal]

Holy chit - I thought the Dems wrapped up yesterday.... Schiff is still droning on....

PROPEGANDA COUP!!!

He started Wednesday so I’m glad I’m not paying attention

[Nelly87]

What are you talking about son? The nonsense about you being a minority and the MSG story? That was a legit post that you wanted a mindful response to? Shrug... what's the other post?

there's been a few, lost count as there's been a lot of activity today, naw that one was obv sarcasm bruh.

all good playa - good game

[z4v4]

He started Wednesday so I’m glad I’m not paying attention

I hate to say it, but Schiff crushed it, son.

[Mark1T]

Lol @ always deflecting instead of speaking about Trump on Trump.

"...but, but, but... whaddabout dems, lefties, please... listen, whaa... witch hunt...!!"

The only thing embarrassing is your posting, son.

I spoke the truth and you didn't respond because you can't. ///

[Mark1T]

Posting again for sleepy z.

So the dems put it on paper that Trump committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Since there was no crime, it cancels the dem's lie out. Case closed. Time to go home.

[ghostfacedup]

The Trump defense could probably just refuse to show up and this thing could be over. A strong case has not been presented in any way, shape, or form. I say let Dershowitz present on how lame this is, and acquit. Go home.

[ChewYourFood]

Even if they were nefarious, you don't air that **** in public. This is not rocket science.

Just lmao

Statements like this are why nobody takes you serious.

[redmelly]

Yeah i tuned in and was mind blown he was still droning on about russian collusion.

[7Seconds]

So the dems put it on paper that Trump committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Since there was no crime, it cancels the dem's lie out. Case closed. Time to go home.

Setting aside the factual question, the Supreme Court has held that impeachment is a political (nonjusticiable) question. Impeachment is not a legal process. Whether the allegations against President Trump support legal charges is irrelevant to impeachment.

Furthermore the very concept of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is that government officials are capable of using their powers to commit certain crimes and misdemeanors that most people can't, which is why those crimes and misdemeanors aren't written down in statute. It is the sole responsibility of Congress to determine, case-by-case, what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor. And "it wasn't technically illegal" is a preposterously low standard for the conduct of a public servant who serves at the pleasure of the citizenry.

[ImBunky]

NY Mag:

Ratings Show Americans Don’t Care About the Impeachment Trial Enough to Watch It

According to TV ratings for the first two days of the trial, the six news networks covering Trump’s impeachment averaged a little over 11 million viewers combined, with Fox News leading the pack with some 2,654,000 on their channel from 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Viewership dropped by about 20 percent on Wednesday, with a total of 8,858,000 million watching; MSNBC led day two with 1,793,000 tuning in.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/...-in-on-tv.html

I watched like 5 minutes, would rather watch Dr. Phil.

[MountainLion84]

Just read the transcript then listened to what Adam Schiff said was on the phone call (Before the call was released)


Adam Schiff has zero credibility and should not hold any place in politics.... what a sham this is.

[BearyManilowe]

so it takes trolling/memes to get you to respond to me. i've responded to you in two other threads with legitimate responses and you spooked.

I guess if I don't toss you softballs you disappear.

k then, now that i know your level I will try my best to bring it to your level, though you'll likely "win" if I do that, all good though I don't mind takin some l's in your mind so long as I get a good chuckle along the way. i'll think of it like playing with my kiddos when they beat me.

Z4v4 has gone on record to say he only comes here to troll before. No sense engaging him.

[z4v4]

Just lmao

Statements like this are why nobody takes you serious.

Seriously? It's absolutely detrimental for the leader of a country to talk **** about his other branches of his government to the rest of the world. But I guess you're that employee that talks **** about your company, negatively affecting sales, and doesn't think a second about it and wonders why his job always sucks, heh. Don't be that guy, son. Keep humming that E (+/- 87 cents), I guess...

[z4v4]

Z4v4 has gone on record to say he only comes here to troll before. No sense engaging him.

That's not exactly correct, son, but I suppose that's close enough for you.

[z4v4]

Setting aside the factual question, the Supreme Court has held that impeachment is a political (nonjusticiable) question. Impeachment is not a legal process. Whether the allegations against President Trump support legal charges is irrelevant to impeachment.

Furthermore the very concept of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is that government officials are capable of using their powers to commit certain crimes and misdemeanors that most people can't, which is why those crimes and misdemeanors aren't written down in statute. It is the sole responsibility of Congress to determine, case-by-case, what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor. And "it wasn't technically illegal" is a preposterously low standard for the conduct of a public servant who serves at the pleasure of the citizenry.

These guys don't listen to reason when their orange potato's silk is in jeopardy, but good post, nonetheless.

[ghostfacedup]

These guys don't listen to reason when their orange potato's silk is in jeopardy, but good post, nonetheless.

He basically is saying it's subjective, which means it will fail and fall on partisan lines. Sham either way.

[Mark1T]

Setting aside the factual question, the Supreme Court has held that impeachment is a political (nonjusticiable) question. Impeachment is not a legal process. Whether the allegations against President Trump support legal charges is irrelevant to impeachment.

Furthermore the very concept of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is that government officials are capable of using their powers to commit certain crimes and misdemeanors that most people can't, which is why those crimes and misdemeanors aren't written down in statute. It is the sole responsibility of Congress to determine, case-by-case, what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor. And "it wasn't technically illegal" is a preposterously low standard for the conduct of a public servant who serves at the pleasure of the citizenry.

I am very well aware that impeachment is not a a legal process, but all political. Not being a legal process, as we both are aware and everyone else here is aware, the democrats should not use the terminology ==> "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." As I said before the reasons is because it is intentionally deceptive to the public, which is what this political theater is all for; and, because there has been no crime. Those were my points and I stand by them.

The so-called charges that the dems have produced are mind-boggling and to lawyers, it is a shot-gun approach because the dems know that do not have a case and it is not the open and shut case the dems were hoping for. Trump is the first President that is going through the impeachment process where there is no crime.

"Cover-up." "Trump cheated to win 2016 and will cheat to win 2020 and we cannot let him." "Abuse of power." "Russia collusion." "Danger to national security." "High crimes and misdemeanors." "Obstruction of justice." "Criminal bribery and wire fraud." "Trump is a dictator."

[z4v4]

I am very well aware

Starts every post the same way and then proves the opposite in the body of each post.

[ghostfacedup]

Trump is the first President that is going through the impeachment process where there is no crime.

"Cover-up." "Dictator." "Trump cheated to win 2016 and will cheat to win 2020 and we cannot let him." "Abuse of power." "Russia collusion." "Danger to national security." "High crimes and misdemeanors." "Obstruction of justice." "Criminal bribery and wire fraud."

And here we get to the crux of the matter, given an argument that it is purely "political." If this is the case, then the most important tool we can use is precedent, and this is why the Dems fall flat. No crime, no evidence of crime or wrongdoing, and nothing compared to the previous precedent set forth. Thus, it's - like you said - political theater. We are basically in new territory with this, where impeachment is being used PURELY in a political manner, with purely partisan goals....exactly what our framers (more precedent) warned us about.

[z4v4]

And here we get to the crux of the matter, given an argument that it is purely "political." If this is the case, then the most important tool we can use is precedent, and this is why the Dems fall flat. No crime, no evidence of crime or wrongdoing, and nothing compared to the previous precedent set forth. Thus, it's - like you said - political theater. We are basically in new territory with this, where impeachment is being used PURELY in a political manner, with purely partisan goals....exactly what our framers (more precedent) warned us about.

Works both ways, son. Can't let dude abuse his office and not expect that to set a new precedent.

[7Seconds]

And here we get to the crux of the matter, given an argument that it is purely "political." If this is the case, then the most important tool we can use is precedent, and this is why the Dems fall flat. No crime, no evidence of crime or wrongdoing, and nothing compared to the previous precedent set forth. Thus, it's - like you said - political theater. We are basically in new territory with this, where impeachment is being used PURELY in a political manner, with purely partisan goals....exactly what our framers (more precedent) warned us about.

The Federalist Papers #65, second paragraph.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

The framers clearly felt that abuse of power was a valid reason to impeach. In fact, they would most likely be quite surprised at how seldom it has been attempted to remove a president through impeachment.

[ghostfacedup]

The Federalist Papers #65, second paragraph.



The framers clearly felt that abuse of power was a valid reason to impeach. In fact, they would most likely be quite surprised at how seldom it has been attempted to remove a president through impeachment.

All you are arguing for is the House's right to bring impeachment up based on "abuse of power". That's fine, and it's debatable, but precedent shows that it's illegitimate compared to other instances. For instance, starting a war, droning innocent civilians etc....we have direct evidence of that. This instance fails to pass the precedent test, as there is no evidence, and wrongdoing is solely subjective and based on a partisan perspective. Clinton lied, committed a crime, not subjective. Also, you're being completely naive if you don't think "high crimes and misdemeanors" wasn't mentioned specifically for a purpose of measuring stick. "Abuse of power" is subjective, and the onus is on Dems to prove that it occurred, which they've failed miserably at since the onset.
Dershowitz is going to eat these fools based on all of this, watch.

[StoliFun]

Setting aside the factual question, the Supreme Court has held that impeachment is a political (nonjusticiable) question. Impeachment is not a legal process. Whether the allegations against President Trump support legal charges is irrelevant to impeachment.

Furthermore the very concept of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is that government officials are capable of using their powers to commit certain crimes and misdemeanors that most people can't, which is why those crimes and misdemeanors aren't written down in statute. It is the sole responsibility of Congress to determine, case-by-case, what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor. And "it wasn't technically illegal" is a preposterously low standard for the conduct of a public servant who serves at the pleasure of the citizenry.

[7Seconds]

All you are arguing for is the House's right to bring impeachment up based on "abuse of power". That's fine, and it's debatable, but precedent shows that it's illegitimate compared to other instances. For instance, starting a war, droning innocent civilians etc....we have direct evidence of that. This instance fails to pass the precedent test, as there is no evidence, and wrongdoing is solely subjective and based on a partisan perspective. Clinton lied, committed a crime, not subjective. Also, you're being completely naive if you don't think "high crimes and misdemeanors" wasn't mentioned specifically for a purpose of measuring stick. "Abuse of power" is subjective, and the onus is on Dems to prove that it occurred, which they've failed miserably at since the onset.
Dershowitz is going to eat these fools based on all of this, watch.

Congress is mandated by the constitution to oversee the executive branch. President Trump is acting like Congress is illegitimate in its requests for evidence and testimony. If Congress were to allow him to shift the burden of proof — where POTUS DOESN’T have to cooperate with Congress as the default — that would set a very dangerous precedent. Congress shouldn’t have to fight tooth and nail and get things endlessly dragged out in the courts to perform its constitutionally mandated duty. Not to mention that at the end of the day SCOTUS can’t actually enforce its rulings anyway.

[ghostfacedup]

Congress is mandated by the constitution to oversee the executive branch. President Trump is acting like Congress is illegitimate in its requests for evidence and testimony. If Congress were to allow him to shift the burden of proof — where POTUS DOESN’T have to cooperate with Congress as the default — that would set a very dangerous precedent. Congress shouldn’t have to fight tooth and nail and get things endlessly dragged out in the courts to perform its constitutionally mandated duty. Not to mention that at the end of the day SCOTUS can’t actually enforce its rulings anyway.

Wait, are you arguing that this is actually obstruction and against his executive privilege? This had every right to go to SCOTUS. LOL dude.

[Austanian]

The Federalist Papers #65, second paragraph.

The framers clearly felt that abuse of power was a valid reason to impeach. In fact, they would most likely be quite surprised at how seldom it has been attempted to remove a president through impeachment.

If you used this standard for "abuse of power" every president would be impeached and Biden wouldn't be allowed to run...

Thus your position is pretty meaningless.

[7Seconds]

Wait, are you arguing that this is actually obstruction and against his executive privilege? This had every right to go to SCOTUS. LOL dude.

No, I am arguing whether he is doing his job as laid out in the constitution. And the only body that can determine that — and is indeed mandated to do so by their powers of oversight over the entire executive branch — is Congress.

[ghostfacedup]

If you used this standard for "abuse of power" every president would be impeached and Biden wouldn't be allowed to run...

Thus your position is pretty meaningless.

Again, PRECEDENT. Drone strikes, war, DACA, Bidens in Ukraine, Steele Dossier. They don't get it, and this is why it's a failure.

[ghostfacedup]

No, I am arguing whether he is doing his job as laid out in the constitution. And the only body that can determine that — and is indeed mandated to do so by their powers of oversight over the entire executive branch — is Congress.

And who's job is to PROVE he's done something wrong? CONGRESS. Who has FAILED to prove ANYTHING wrong? Congress. And if you were to take the stance that perhaps he did, then ALL witnesses from both sides MUST be called.

The Onus has been on Dems and they've failed. If they want to do it properly they can start over in the house.