• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

Status
Not open for further replies.

RationalityIsLost101

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
259
Trophies
0
Age
33
XP
490
Country
United States
SCOTUS just granted cert to Trump's challenge of the House's subpoenas to produce his financial records. Whether SCOTUS eventually rules for or against him, just that they granted certiorari means the President is entitled to judicial review of his opposition of Congressional committee subpoenas.

The 2nd article of impeachment alleges the President "obstructed Congress" by refusing to immediately comply with House subpoenas for certain persons to testify and instead put it to the Supreme Court whether he had to comply (nevermind that Obama also refused to allow certain persons to testify, and never even sought to make sure he was in the right). But that's dead in the water now. SCOTUS says the President can validly dispute Congressional subpoenas. Trump might lose, Trump might win ... but the point is there's nothing wrong with the President referring the matter for resolution to the Courts.


This is what Turley was talking about here:



SCOTUS hearing those cases in my understanding are because of a variety of different reasons due to each case having a different set of arguments for seeking the information and the white-house refusing while seeking an appeal to a higher court. Not all of the are congress seeking information. One in particular involves a criminal trial in Southern district of NY. I believe they are grouping them together.

These are subpoenas for private financial information (federal or business tax records).

I argue that this isn't the same as refusing subpoenas of government officials and government documents from a formal impeachment inquiry that have direct knowledge of matters involving the inquiry. Precedent of past court decisions speak to support the house in this area.

I'll do some more reading on each case as I haven't dissected them in detail, only been following the occasional news report as I knew they were going to be appealed to supreme court eventually.
 

TheCasketMan

Keyblade Apprentice
Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
943
Trophies
1
Location
Orlando, FL
XP
2,362
Country
United States
Trump will be acquitted in the Senate. In other words, this impeachment is a waste of time for the Democrats and landslide 2020/22 win for Trump & Republicans.
 

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,714
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,459
Country
United States
Both articles of impeachment have now passed in the House, meaning Trump is officially the third* president in history to be impeached.

Trump will be acquitted in the Senate. In other words, this impeachment is a waste of time for the Democrats
Protecting the integrity of our elections is the last thing I'd call a waste of time. Though I'm sure the Senate won't even attempt to make the trial look legitimate, and Trump will view acquittal as a free pass to again seek foreign interference in 2020. I wouldn't bet against him being stupid enough to get caught a second time, either.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
D

Deleted User

Guest
As much as I would like to see that goofball to be prosecuted. Trump is the Republicans best Candidate for Election 2020.
I can´t see them abandon him anytime soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CallmeBerto and Xzi

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,714
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,459
Country
United States
As much as I would like to see that goofball to be prosecuted. Trump is the Republicans best Candidate for Election 2020.
I can´t see them abandon him anytime soon.
He does have several primary challengers who have already declared they're running against him, but yes, Republicans will do whatever they can to protect king mierdas. The party has canceled primary votes in a few states ahead of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IncredulousP

Armadillo

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
4,270
Trophies
3
XP
5,217
Country
United Kingdom
So quick question from someone outside the US.

So impeachment is basically just giving it the ok to go to "trial"? And then the senate is basically the jury? Except in this case the jury is made up of people on Trump's side?

So what's the point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: IncredulousP

TheCasketMan

Keyblade Apprentice
Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
943
Trophies
1
Location
Orlando, FL
XP
2,362
Country
United States
So quick question from someone outside the US.

So impeachment is basically just giving it the ok to go to "trial"? And then the senate is basically the jury? Except in this case the jury is made up of people on Trump's side?

So what's the point?

Just to waste people's time on this sham impeachment, same with the Russian collusion hoax from the past few years.
 
Last edited by TheCasketMan,
D

Deleted User

Guest
Can they put him on trial after his term is over? I mean take the Mueller report and investigate again?
 
  • Like
Reactions: IncredulousP

TheCasketMan

Keyblade Apprentice
Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
943
Trophies
1
Location
Orlando, FL
XP
2,362
Country
United States
Can they put him on trial after his term is over? I mean take the Mueller report and investigate again?

If they don't put him on trial now, then that proves how weak and partisan the Democrats impeachment case is.
If Trump loses re-election (which is now very very unlikely) then there's no point in convicting him in the Senate since the punishment for a Senate impeachment is just being removed from office, not jail time.
 
D

Deleted User

Guest
After rereading this article from the rolling stone about the Muelle report is was thinking that maybe there is a chance in 10 Years or so to put him on trial:

You could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?” Buck asked.

“Yes,” Mueller responded, matter of fact.

JACKSON LEE: Does a conviction of obstruction of justice result potentially in a lot of years of — a lot of years of time in jail?

MUELLER: Yes. Well, can you repeat the question just to make certain I have it accurate?

JACKSON LEE: Does obstruction of justice warrant a lot of time in jail if you were convicted?

MUELLER: Yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IncredulousP

osaka35

Instructional Designer
Global Moderator
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,735
Trophies
2
Location
Silent Hill
XP
5,920
Country
United States
Obviously won't pass senate as they don't care about laws or morals, just about winning. And the VP is just as devoid of moral integrity, so it wouldn't even change much if he was replaced.

But when it comes to deciding whether you do the morally right thing, or the easy thing, you should always try and do the right thing. And in this case, the democrats have done this. Kudos on them. Now let's hope they don't mess with the primary again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IncredulousP

Hanafuda

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
4,451
Trophies
2
XP
6,868
Country
United States
Though I'm sure the Senate won't even attempt to make the trial look legitimate


Well the House majority sure didn't bother with that much during their part of the game. They're sending less than probable cause to the Senate. If reduced only to admissible evidence (no hearsay, no presumptions, no opinions) it's fucking nothing. A faulty indictment.

When Bill Clinton was impeached, Sen. Robert Byrd introduced a motion to dismiss before the trial and all but one Democrat voted in favor. Including Schumer, Feinstein, and Biden. Even though Clinton's perjury was explicitly plain to everyone. The Republicans held the majority at the time, so that motion failed. But Democrats would have been more than happy to see that impeachment dismissed without trial.
 

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,714
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,459
Country
United States
The third :ha:. Nixon resigned before the impeachment.
I had to look it up, but there were three articles of impeachment adopted against Nixon between July 27 and July 30, 1974. Two others were rejected. Nixon started notifying people of his intent to resign on August 8, so it was the Senate trial which was never completed (and it looked as though Nixon would be removed if it had been).

The articles approved against Nixon were eerily similar to the ones approved against Trump, though obviously the content therein is quite dissimilar.

Well the House majority sure didn't bother with that much during their part of the game. They're sending less than probable cause to the Senate. If reduced only to admissible evidence (no hearsay, no presumptions, no opinions) it's fucking nothing. A faulty indictment.
What it boils down to is this: everybody willing to testify under oath, including a number of Trump's own appointees, say he did it. Among all those yelling that he's innocent, none of them are willing to testify under oath. If the American people in the majority are too stupid to understand which of these groups is more trustworthy, then our country deserves to crumble from within, and that's very likely to be its fate.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
  • Like
Reactions: Taleweaver

Hanafuda

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
4,451
Trophies
2
XP
6,868
Country
United States
I had to look it up, but there were three articles of impeachment adopted against Nixon between July 27 and July 30, 1974. Two others were rejected. Nixon started notifying people of his intent to resign on August 8, so it was the Senate trial which was never completed (and it looked as though Nixon would be removed if it had been).

The articles approved against Nixon were eerily similar to the ones approved against Trump, though obviously the content therein is quite dissimilar.


Articles were adopted in Committee, but were not voted on by the full House. Nixon wasn't impeached, but only because his resignation made it moot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ev1l0rd and Xzi

IncredulousP

GBAtemp's Resident Bastard
OP
Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
679
Trophies
2
Location
Penguin Village
XP
2,993
Country
United States
I had to look it up, but there were three articles of impeachment adopted against Nixon between July 27 and July 30, 1974. Two others were rejected. Nixon started notifying people of his intent to resign on August 8, so it was the Senate trial which was never completed (and it looked as though Nixon would be removed if it had been).

The articles approved against Nixon were eerily similar to the ones approved against Trump, though obviously the content therein is quite dissimilar.
"The House Judiciary Committee, in July 1974, approved three articles of impeachment (see below) and sent them to the full House. But Nixon resigned before there was a vote the House." - WaPo, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-despite-what-hillary-clinton-and-others-say/

But yeah, the articles look similar because Trump and Nixon are/were crooked bastards that manipulate the less-abled populous into handing them unchecked power. Still can't believe how far this corruption has gotten and we still have morons defending this disgusting shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ev1l0rd and Xzi

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,714
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,459
Country
United States
Articles were adopted in Committee, but were not voted on by the full House. Nixon wasn't impeached, but only because his resignation made it moot.
"The House Judiciary Committee, in July 1974, approved three articles of impeachment (see below) and sent them to the full House. But Nixon resigned before there was a vote the House." - WaPo, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-despite-what-hillary-clinton-and-others-say/

But yeah, the articles look similar because Trump and Nixon are/were crooked bastards that manipulate the less-abled populous into handing them unchecked power. Still can't believe how far this corruption has gotten and we still have morons defending this disgusting shit.
Ah that makes sense, thanks for the clarification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IncredulousP

Hanafuda

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
4,451
Trophies
2
XP
6,868
Country
United States
What it boils down to is this: everybody willing to testify under oath, including a number of Trump's own appointees, say he did it. Among all those yelling that he's innocent, none of them are willing to testify under oath. If the American people in the majority are too stupid to understand which of these groups is more trustworthy, then our country deserves to crumble from within, and that's very likely to be its fate.

They said they THINK he did. Big difference. And nobody's ever established that it would be an impeachable offense if they were correct. That question aside, those witnesses all got asked if they had any direct evidence, and direct eyewitness proof that this was bribery or quid pro quo, whatever, and they said no. Sondland did acknowledge that he thought there was definitely a quid pro quo, but about Zelensky getting a meeting. Not about the aid being held up until there was an investigation of Biden. That he could only presume ... same as the other witnesses who were there to say what Schiff needed said.


Anyway, I hope they just quit wasting time, money, and effort that could be spent on something productive, since we know this is going nowhere anyway. Instead of more hot air just agree to adopt the same exact procedural rules as the Clinton impeachment (they were approved unanimously) and get it over with.
 
Last edited by Hanafuda,

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,714
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,459
Country
United States
They said they THINK he did. Big difference. And nobody's ever established that it would be an impeachable offense if they were correct. That question aside, those witnesses all got asked if they had any direct evidence, and actual showing that this was bribery or quid pro quo, whatever, and they said no. Sondland did acknowledge that he thought there was definitely a quid pro quo, but about Zelensky getting a meeting. Not about the aid being held up until there was an investigation of Biden.
The semantics of whether to call it a quid pro quo, or bribery, or something else are not important, as that was all wrapped up into one big abuse of power article. And the question of whether or not this conduct is impeachable was largely put to rest when three of four constitutional scholars testified that it is. One went so far as to say, "if this isn't impeachable, nothing is." OTOH, if only one of the four had declared that this conduct was impeachable, I seriously doubt Democrats would have proceeded.

Where the aid is concerned, the timeline speaks for itself. It wasn't released until both a whistleblower complaint was filed and the impeachment inquiry had already begun. There is no assurance it would've been released at all if there was no outcry and/or no repercussions. The administration was quite literally caught in the act.

Anyway, I hope they just quit wasting time, money, and effort that could be spent on something productive, since we know this is going nowhere anyway.
The legislative process was in gridlock before impeachment, and it'll be in gridlock after impeachment. There are hundreds, if not thousands of bills sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk, dead on arrival. So unfortunately no, there is nothing more productive that could be happening right now. The Democrats won the House in 2018 with the expectation that they'd provide some level of accountability, and that's exactly what they've done.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
Status
Not open for further replies.

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    Bigonya uses his wiener to mod 360s
    +1
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    Going to the water park, see ya
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    You should update the 360 to newest dash before RGHing it yes. But not a big deal if you don't, you can install new dash/avatar updates after. It's just easier to do it auto online before, instead manual offline after.
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Have fun @Xdqwerty. If you see a chocolate candy bar floating in the water, don't eat it!
  • AncientBoi @ AncientBoi:
    :O:ohnoes: Y didn't U Tell ME that ALSO? @BigOnYa :ohnoes: 🤢🤮
    +1
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Does it taste like... chicken?
    +1
  • S @ salazarcosplay:
    @BigOnYa I wanted to ask you about your experience with seeing south park. Most of the people a bit younger like my younger brother and cousins that are a few younger than me that saw kids found south park funny because of the curse words, kids at school, that seemed like liking the show on a very basic level.

    I could not quite have a in depth discussion of the show.

    How was it for you? As an adult. What did you find the most interesting part about it. Did you relate to the parents of the kids and their situations. Was it satires, the commentary on society. The references on celebrities' and pop culture.
    +1
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    I remember seeing the very first episode back in the day, and have watched every episode since. I used to set my VCR to record them even, shows how long ago.
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    I just like any comedies really, and cartoons have always been a favorite of mine. Family guy, American Dad, Futurama, Cleveland Show, Simpsons - I like them all.
    +1
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    South Park is great cause they always touch on relavent issues going on today, and make something funny out of it.
    +3
  • S @ salazarcosplay:
    @BigOnYa were you always up to date on the current events and issues of the time or were there issues that you first found out thru south park
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Most of the time yea I knew, I watch and read the news regularly, but sometimes the Hollywood BS stuff, like concerning actors slip by me. I don't follow most Hollywood BS (example: the Kardasians)
    +2
  • S @ salazarcosplay:
    @BigOnYa there were relevant issues before south park was made, that's why i think a south park prequel/spinoff would be great. Randy and his friends in their child hood
    +1
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Yea, like them running in high school together, getting into stuff, and how they got hitched and had kids. And how the town of South Park was back then compared to now. That would be cool to see.
  • BakerMan @ BakerMan:
    yeah
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    @salazarcosplay if they made a prequel, it would still be about current issues, cause it doesn't make sense to make it about stuff that happened 30 years ago that nobody cares about anymore
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    it's too late
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    the older south park episodes about particular issues usually age poorly since the topic is no longer relevant
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    an exception is giant douche vs turd sandwich, that's always relevant :P
    +1
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    I was gone for like an hour and none of you thought to write or call pos
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    We knew you were going to Sonic to get lunch.
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    Sonics fast I would've been home in 10 mins
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Meet and greet with AncientBoi then?
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    That would've gone slow he's old
    +1
    K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2: That would've gone slow he's old +1