Trump Impeachment Inquiry

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Should President Trump Be Impeached?

  • Yes

    Votes: 60 59.4%
  • No

    Votes: 18 17.8%
  • Undecided and awaiting evidence before making a decision

    Votes: 5 5.0%
  • Hillary Did it

    Votes: 9 8.9%
  • It Should be Left to the Election

    Votes: 6 5.9%
  • Get over it!

    Votes: 2 2.0%
  • Rudy Giuliani Did it

    Votes: 1 1.0%

  • Total voters
    101

Phills14

Cleveland Sports Fan
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
10,774
Reaction score
13,656
Points
123
Here is my take...
The President provided no legal reason as to why he has blocked all documents and testimony from Bolton/Mulvaney/Etc during the House Impeachment Investigation. The remedy is in the courts and Congress would without question prevail. However that will take months if not years to exhaust all legal proceedings and resolve the issue.

The Democrats feel the President’s actions are a direct assault on the November elections. If allowed to continue, the President would corrupt the 2020 election and set the ground work for corruption in future elections. Therefore, they need to take the case to the Senate because the courts will not resolve the issue before November..
@cavsfan1985 I’m curious to hear your response to this. You had asked why the Democrats are asking the senate to call witnesses instead of taking the time in the house to do it
 

David.

Radical Centrist
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
28,481
Reaction score
22,955
Points
135
I'm listening closely to both sides on this.

Both sides think the other party is being partisan.

I know you guys legit think there is a case and that the only possible reason for someone not to agree is out of partisanship but the other side thinks that based on the precedent already set this does not qualify for impeachment and based on those involved in this histories, it's partisan act.

Just to move the conversation along a bit
 

DaNewCavs

In the Rotation
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
672
Reaction score
768
Points
93
I don't think any POTUS will be removed in the modern media age short of absolute proof of high treason or murder of something.

67 votes are nearly impossible to get either way in this hyper-partisan society.
I totally agree with this. Although I would say that if the economy was tanking or we were to go to war with Iran, the Republicans would take a much harder look at this. Their thinking right now is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. They are going to die on the hill for the 40% that support him no matter what.
 

King Stannis

Maréchal d'Empire
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
14,657
Reaction score
20,134
Points
135
I'm listening closely to both sides on this.

Both sides think the other party is being partisan.

I know you guys legit think there is a case and that the only possible reason for someone not to agree is out of partisanship but the other side thinks that based on the precedent already set this does not qualify for impeachment and based on those involved in this histories, it's partisan act.

Just to move the conversation along a bit
Well the GOP came to that idea after using and discarding half a dozen other excuses. Moreover, their other positions indicate that not only are they tacking with "not justified" but also occasionally "it didn't happen." Such inconsistency belies no real belief in what they're saying.

They're just trying to justify what they always knew: that no matter the evidence or depth of the cover-up they were never, ever going to remove him (unless the polls hit around 65% for removal).

Which makes one look at Watergate now and it is rather amazing that Nixon resigned.

Had they had the internet then I don't think he would have.

Moreover, Nixon resigned because his Party decided to ditch him lest they get tarred by the same brush for a decade. Considering that Nixon's own VP almost made a miraculous comeback in 1976, and that the GOP then went on to hold the White House for 12 years starting in 1980, the GOP was very correct in forcing Nixon to leave.

That GOP was thinking longterm. Mitch McConnell and the current GOP is not. Mitch is fighting for his life right now in KY and he may come to regret not taking this trial more seriously.
 

David.

Radical Centrist
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
28,481
Reaction score
22,955
Points
135
@King, I do have to say, the left lighting their hair on fire and continuing to obsess and pour more and more gasoline on themselves and doing everything they can to remove the guy since day one does have a lot of people tunredoff to taking this as seriously some people would like. You can argue intent if you want to read minds but a couple of dems voted against impeachment and tulsi voted present, and I probably agree with her the most on this

And I'll say the same thing here I essentially say there, you have to actually deal with their argument. If precedent is set then precedent is set.


And, they believe just as much that there is no case as you do there is one. It's legitimately contentious, everyone is just certain they're right on either side
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,266
Reaction score
7,151
Points
113
What precedent is being discussed? Why should we give any weight to the "belief" that there is no case, aka ignoring the evidence? Just another both sidesing on impeachment without presenting what the other side is even offering.

The right called Obama the anti-Christ bringing about end times while the Republicans in Congress went insane because the government tried to get more people on health insurance, pulling every trick they could to avoid working with him. But it's always the left that gets blamed for overreaction/over-sensitivity. Somehow, reacting to very real issues and scandals piled on daily by this president is the problem rather than the president or his actions.
 

King Stannis

Maréchal d'Empire
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
14,657
Reaction score
20,134
Points
135
@King, I do have to say, the left lighting their hair on fire and continuing to obsess and pour more and more gasoline on themselves and doing everything they can to remove the guy since day one does have a lot of people tunredoff to taking this as seriously some people would like. You can argue intent if you want to read minds but a couple of dems voted against impeachment and tulsi voted present, and I probably agree with her the most on this

And I'll say the same thing here I essentially say there, you have to actually deal with their argument. If precedent is set then precedent is set.


And, they believe just as much that there is no case as you do there is one. It's legitimately contentious, everyone is just certain they're right on either side
The description of those that oppose Trump as being irrational crazies is ________. Anyone that thinks in those terms isn't going to vote Democrat anyway. And the Democrats don't put much stock in what they think for several reasons.

But, given the results of 2018, and the consistent polls that indicate a strong majority of people agree that there was wrongdoing, I don't think as many people are turned off as the GOP would like. Not even remotely close.
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
5,830
Reaction score
8,075
Points
113
@King, I do have to say, the left lighting their hair on fire and continuing to obsess and pour more and more gasoline on themselves and doing everything they can to remove the guy since day one does have a lot of people tunredoff to taking this as seriously some people would like. You can argue intent if you want to read minds but a couple of dems voted against impeachment and tulsi voted present, and I probably agree with her the most on this

And I'll say the same thing here I essentially say there, you have to actually deal with their argument. If precedent is set then precedent is set.


And, they believe just as much that there is no case as you do there is one. It's legitimately contentious, everyone is just certain they're right on either side
If you want to bring up things that turn people off from a conversation, starting out with hyperbole's a really good way to do it.

It's pretty pointless to respond to an argument that's completely made up. Bring up things that actually happened if you want a discussion.

For the rest of your post, please elaborate on what precedent you're referring to.
 

Lord Mar

Master
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
12,519
Points
123
@King, I do have to say, the left lighting their hair on fire and continuing to obsess and pour more and more gasoline on themselves and doing everything they can to remove the guy since day one does have a lot of people tunredoff to taking this as seriously some people would like. You can argue intent if you want to read minds but a couple of dems voted against impeachment and tulsi voted present, and I probably agree with her the most on this

And I'll say the same thing here I essentially say there, you have to actually deal with their argument. If precedent is set then precedent is set.


And, they believe just as much that there is no case as you do there is one. It's legitimately contentious, everyone is just certain they're right on either side
This actually turns me on.

Just sharing.
 

King Stannis

Maréchal d'Empire
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
14,657
Reaction score
20,134
Points
135
@King, I do have to say, the left lighting their hair on fire and continuing to obsess and pour more and more gasoline on themselves and doing everything they can to remove the guy since day one does have a lot of people tunredoff to taking this as seriously some people would like. You can argue intent if you want to read minds but a couple of dems voted against impeachment and tulsi voted present, and I probably agree with her the most on this

And I'll say the same thing here I essentially say there, you have to actually deal with their argument. If precedent is set then precedent is set.


And, they believe just as much that there is no case as you do there is one. It's legitimately contentious, everyone is just certain they're right on either side
Sorry, I misread your whole post.

What precedent? And what is their case today?

And what of the second article for Obstruction (and conspiracy)?
 

King Stannis

Maréchal d'Empire
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
14,657
Reaction score
20,134
Points
135
And now he's complaining that his trial isn't rigged enough.

There is no pleasing some people.

Something that those GOP Senators should keep in mind, along with the well-known fact that loyalty is a one-way street with Dear Donny.

 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,266
Reaction score
7,151
Points
113
Another day, another massive lie from the president exposed. Here's a recording of Trump talking with Parnas:


Wait a minute, didn't the president tell us that he didn't know Lev Parnas? Even though Parnas was buddies with his lawyer and has an album of photos and videos with Trump. Hmmm... Maybe, just maybe, the president isn't as honest as the GOP is claiming.

It's old news, but how sad is it that this won't move the needle at all? The GOP made up their minds to back the president and no amount of lies from him or facts from the investigation will shift them now.

 

Phil Mixtape

In the Rotation
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
641
Reaction score
593
Points
93
And now he's complaining that his trial isn't rigged enough.

There is no pleasing some people.

Something that those GOP Senators should keep in mind, along with the well-known fact that loyalty is a one-way street with Dear Donny.

I wonder what this guy's i.q. is? These idiotic little nicknames he makes up for congress members are beyond embarrassing, especially for the president. Can we just get a normal person elected please?
 

cavsfan1985

^ kind of a big deal!
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
4,847
Reaction score
2,990
Points
113
@cavsfan1985 I’m curious to hear your response to this. You had asked why the Democrats are asking the senate to call witnesses instead of taking the time in the house to do it
I think it is an excuse. They could have at-least tried and taken it to the courts. We never will know if it would have taken that long. Its a great excuse to use and follows along with the logic all along this is an attempt to get ride of Trump in any way possible.

You can’t get mad at Trump for blocking, which he has the power to do. But then not even use the power they have which is to take it to the courts, and have them make a decision. To me this is congress trying to show they have more power then the president, which they do not. They have equal power, and cases of who has the final say, it supposed to do to the courts.

IMO the reason they did not go to court, was 100% political motivated. They want to put the pressure on Republicans now in a hope to influence the next election.
 

Radio

Top