Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

RationalityIsLost101 · Nov 22, 2019

cots said:
See you think that Zelensky is being pressured to not implicate Trump. What you think has no bearing on the issue at hand. It's like my previous example, you witness two people having sex and then assume because it was rough sex that one of the partners was being forced to have sex. You report the crime and both parties claim it was consensual. No matter how violent the sex was unless there was a video of one party refusing and clear cut abuse no one is going to consider what some bystander thinks about it over the word of the actual two people involved, especially if the bystander is involved with people who have filed 9 previous false reports. Now consider it's not even the bystander who saying this took place, but the person who is going to cops to report a crime is someone that overheard what the bystander claimed he saw. So the entire case against the two people involved is based on second hand testimony and assumptions. This is exactly why it's going to go nowhere in the Senate. It's not because the Republicans are in Trump's pocket. It's the 10th attempt. No one is taking the Democrats seriously anymore. They've cried wolf too many times. The only people taking this seriously are the Liberals who can't think for themselves. They're being told what to think. Heaven forbid they start asking their masters questions that their masters have told them not to ask. Imagine what were to happen if the Liberals started to think things that they aren't allowed to think or say things they aren't allowed to say.

Ok your example doesn't inject an appropriate power dynamic that is reflective of the situation. Imagine you walk into a room with your boss and a fellow coworker and the coworker appeared to be sexually harassed. While the coworker denies it, you also know that the coworker is dependent on this job for income to feed their family.

But I digress, this is getting silly to have to explain. Has no one ever worked for large corporations before? Where are the ethics / HR people when you finally need them.

cots · Nov 22, 2019

Xzi said:
"Collusion" is not a legal term, volume one of the Mueller report was about a potential conspiracy, and it was inconclusive. Though now that Roger Stone has been found guilty of all seven counts of crimes he was charged with, we do have evidence that Trump lied to Mueller in parts of his written testimony. Should be interesting to see how all that develops. As the saying goes, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

As for the election, nobody contested the results. There were no recounts. Trump was sworn in as normal. You're playing the victim on his behalf, and for no reason. If you think the purpose of impeachment is to "overturn elections," you're entirely mistaken. That's like suggesting that kicking a college kid out for cheating on his exams is the same thing as overturning his admission.

We agree on the "moving on" bit though. Trump had two years in which Republicans controlled all three branches of government and got very little accomplished. Then Republicans lost the 2018 mid-terms badly, and they've since refused to take action on any bi-partisan legislation whatsoever. If Trump and McConnell think they can refuse to do their jobs while siphoning taxpayer dollars into their bank accounts without any consequences, they're sorely mistaken. Both the 2018 and 2019 elections have shown that the American people won't stand for it.

See, exactly what I'm talking about. You won't admit defeat and continue with the collusion related garbage. You're quiet pathetic.

So planning to remove Trump of out the White House before he was in office for any reason necessary by abusing the impeachment process and then after the fact of spouting a failed conspiracy theory and doing so 10 times is in no way representative of the fact that the Liberals won't accept the results. I guess you haven't been on any Liberal forums lately and have read how their plan might actually work this time or the thousands of posts simply declaring Trump didn't win because the electoral college doesn't matter and this is the main reason why the impeachment process should be abused.

You're not fooling anyone. Maybe you should check with your masters on how to counter all of this because your obsessiveness based lies are pretty apparent.

RationalityIsLost101 · Nov 22, 2019

cots said:
Yes, which Trump had nothing to do with. You didn't answer my others questions. Specifically;

You didn't address the Democrats refusal to accept the election results nor did you give your opinion on whether or not if this 10th premeditated impeachment attempt is okay (especially considering there's been 9 previous attempts). Remember, the Democrats pledged to remove Trump from office regardless if he does anything wrong. Isn't 10 attempts a bit obsessive? Shouldn't impeachment be reserved for the very bad occasion if a President does something really bad? I mean, they're abusing the process. Would it be too hard to accept your party lost and actually do your job instead of trying to oust the President for any reason possible?

There's much discussion to be had and little time. Ok, to address this without looking I'd argue we are at our first Impeachment Inquiry and by law that is what truly counts.

I think of it as calling the cops 9-10 times but when asked do you want to press charges you say no. And now you say yes press charges.

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

I presume this is what you keep referring to? I haven't read it so let me review and I'll respond, maybe I'll change my perspective on this.

cots · Nov 22, 2019

RationalityIsLost101 said:
I think of it as calling the cops 9-10 times but when asked do you want to press charges you say no. And now you say yes press charges.

Seeings as the first 9 attempts were bogus the cops would have refused to allow you to file a report after the 3rd attempt and arrested you after the 8th for abusing the system.

Xzi · Nov 22, 2019

cots said:
See, exactly what I'm talking about. You won't admit defeat and continue with the collusion related garbage. You're quiet pathetic.

What defeat am I meant to be admitting to? We're talking about the justice system here, and I'm neither a prosecutor nor a defense attorney. Roger Stone's defense was defeated, and in case you weren't aware, he's been close with Trump for quite a long time.

cots said:
So planning to remove Trump of out the White House before he was in office for any reason necessary by abusing the impeachment process and then after the fact of spouting a failed conspiracy theory and doing so 10 times is in no way representative of the fact that the Liberals won't accept the results.

This whole "ten times" bullshit is itself a conspiracy theory. Impeachment has been initiated ONCE and only once. Get that through your skull. The reason for initiating the process is also perfectly valid, and there will be any number of valid articles of impeachment included.

urherenow · Nov 22, 2019

RationalityIsLost101 said:
I've not only watched this entire hearing process from start to finish.

Was confusing posts together... it was Taleweaver that said he didn't watch. My apologies. I'm fairly certain that if the Democrats COULD reasonably charge him with obstruction, they would. In a heartbeat.
But it's still laughable that you're clinging on to that, while the chairman himself is obstructing (allowing not a single witness requested by the Republicans and, in fact, FABRICATING a non-existant law to keep the whistle blower out of it), and NOTHING about this process thus far (forget that it's not in a court of law, or even an actual trial) even closely resembles "justice".

cots · Nov 22, 2019

Xzi said:
What defeat am I meant to be admitting to? We're talking about the justice system here, and I'm neither a prosecutor nor a defense attorney. Roger Stone's defense was defeated, and in case you weren't aware, he's been close with Trump for quite a long time.

This whole "ten times" bullshit is itself a conspiracy theory. Impeachment has been initiated ONCE and only once. Get that through your skull. The reason for initiating the process is also perfectly valid, and there will be any number of valid articles of impeachment included.

Trying to deflect on your personal involvement doesn't change the fact that you've repeatedly take the position that collusion happened and refuse to admit Trump is not guilty. Your previous comments on the subject along with your avoidance of admitting that you lost in this instance clearly highlight the fact you won't accept the rules of the game and those rules dictate that your party was wrong and was defeated. Trump is not guilty of what you claim he was guilty of. Time to move on.

There's been 9 previous attempts at impeachment. Congress has brought the issue up for the 10th time. This the first one to get an official inquiry. The previous 9 were based on thin air - just like the collusion with Russia. Sorry bud, your party is probably going to have to try for the 11th time after this attempt fails. Seeings as your party refuses to accept the fact Trump won the election and all.

If you don't like facts and all maybe you should load up your Wikipedia account, you know the one you use to edit and remove things you don't like from the site. This page may be an interesting target. You got a lot of work to do. Maybe you can hire some of the folks that are behind creating Wiki entries about false phobias to give you a hand.

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

RationalityIsLost101 · Nov 22, 2019

cots said:
Seeings as the first 9 attempts were bogus the cops would have refused to allow you to file a report after the 3rd attempt and arrested you after the 8th for abusing the system.

That's not true. If each call was rooted and validated in good faith you would not be able to be culpable. We could argue what is or is not in good faith.. I'm failing to see your 10 attempts thus far.
---
"accusations of "Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred", which formed the basis of a resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017. Since the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during 2017 and 2018, the likelihood of impeachment during that period was considered by all to be low.[8][9] A December 2017 resolution of impeachment failed in the House by a 58–364 margin"
---
That is one, and one I wasn't aware of. This is noted.
---
On January 17, 2019, new accusations involving Trump surfaced, claiming he instructed his long-time lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie under oath surrounding Trump's involvement with the Russian government to erect a Trump Tower in Moscow.[19] This also sparked calls for an investigation and for the president to "resign or be impeached" should such claims be proven genuine.[20] The Mueller Report was released on April 18, 2019, and Robert Mueller himself made follow-up comments on May 29. The report reached no conclusion about whether Trump had committed criminal obstruction of justice.[21] Mueller strongly hinted that it was up to Congress to make such a determination. Congressional support for an impeachment inquiry increased as a result.[22]
---
The criminal obstruction of justice w/ Mueller's report will likely be in the articles of impeachment that will be voted on. I don't expect Cohen's pornstar payments to impact individual 1 until he leaves office. He also will be unable to receive a pardon for that crime.

---
A formal impeachment inquiry was launched on September 24, 2019, as a response to the Trump–Ukraine scandal, in which Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani pressed the Ukrainian government repeatedly since at least May 2019 to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden.[23][24][25][26][27] The purpose of the requested investigation was alleged to be to hurt Biden's campaign for President.[28][29] In July Trump issued a hold on military aid scheduled to sent to Ukraine, releasing it in September after controversy arose. There was widespread speculation that the withholding of the aid was intended to force Ukraine to investigate Biden; both Trump and Giuliani seemed to confirm that there was such a connection.[30]

In an October 8, 2019 letter to House Democratic leaders, the White House stated it would not cooperate with "your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances."[31] The eight-page letter was widely interpreted by legal analysts as containing political rather than legal arguments.[32][33][34][35][36]
---
Ok let's discuss this further because I'm not seeing what you are claiming. Just because some left leaning individual declares a travesty has happened and it deserves impeachment isn't equivalent to holding a vote on an actual resolution of impeachment.

I completely agree we are at the count of 2 formal votes (three if you count Mueller obstruction - I know a vote was held under the House Judiciary Committee but I'd defer that it is going to be lumped w/ the Ukraine scandal as both have Obstruction of Justice and that will only be served under a single article of impeachment.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

urherenow said:
Was confusing posts together... it was Taleweaver that said he didn't watch. My apologies. I'm fairly certain that if the Democrats COULD reasonably charge him with obstruction, they would. In a heartbeat.
But it's still laughable that you're clinging on to that, while the chairman himself is obstructing (allowing not a single witness requested by the Republicans and, in fact, FABRICATING a non-existant law to keep the whistle blower out of it), and NOTHING about this process thus far (forget that it's not in a court of law, or even an actual trial) even closely resembles "justice".

Well we will agree to disagree. Obstruction of justice is pretty cut and dry for the Ukraine Scandal. Feel free to discuss with any attorneys you know.

Xzi · Nov 22, 2019

cots said:
Trying to deflect on your personal involvement doesn't change the fact that you've repeatedly take the position that collusion happened and refuse to admit Trump is not guilty.

I don't enjoy having to repeat myself, but since you apparently have a very low level of reading comprehension, let me say it again: collusion is not a legal term. I'll gladly admit that Trump's not guilty of it, because that's a meaningless admission. The investigation into whether he committed CONSPIRACY is still ongoing in that the outcome of the Roger Stone trial was tied to that investigation in a number of ways. I couldn't possibly care less if the idea that it's still ongoing triggers you, there will be more developments to come, that's just the reality of the situation.

cots said:
There's been 9 previous attempts at impeachment.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but statements don't get much more moronic than this. If Democrats wanted to initiate impeachment sooner, they would have. They have the majority in the House, so they don't need to "attempt" anything.

If you want to suggest that the Mueller investigation was somehow an attempt to impeach, that's fine, but it just so happens that investigation was both started by a Republican and led by a Republican. Feel free to criticize your own party for once and maybe gain a little self-awareness in the process.

cots · Nov 22, 2019

RationalityIsLost101 said:
That's not true. If each call was rooted and validated in good faith you would not be able to be culpable. We could argue what is or is not in good faith.. I'm failing to see your 10 attempts thus far.
---
"accusations of "Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred", which formed the basis of a resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017. Since the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during 2017 and 2018, the likelihood of impeachment during that period was considered by all to be low.[8][9] A December 2017 resolution of impeachment failed in the House by a 58–364 margin"
---
That is one, and one I wasn't aware of. This is noted.
---
On January 17, 2019, new accusations involving Trump surfaced, claiming he instructed his long-time lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie under oath surrounding Trump's involvement with the Russian government to erect a Trump Tower in Moscow.[19] This also sparked calls for an investigation and for the president to "resign or be impeached" should such claims be proven genuine.[20] The Mueller Report was released on April 18, 2019, and Robert Mueller himself made follow-up comments on May 29. The report reached no conclusion about whether Trump had committed criminal obstruction of justice.[21] Mueller strongly hinted that it was up to Congress to make such a determination. Congressional support for an impeachment inquiry increased as a result.[22]
---
The criminal obstruction of justice w/ Mueller's report will likely be in the articles of impeachment that will be voted on. I don't expect Cohen's pornstar payments to impact individual 1 until he leaves office. He also will be unable to receive a pardon for that crime.

---
A formal impeachment inquiry was launched on September 24, 2019, as a response to the Trump–Ukraine scandal, in which Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani pressed the Ukrainian government repeatedly since at least May 2019 to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden.[23][24][25][26][27] The purpose of the requested investigation was alleged to be to hurt Biden's campaign for President.[28][29] In July Trump issued a hold on military aid scheduled to sent to Ukraine, releasing it in September after controversy arose. There was widespread speculation that the withholding of the aid was intended to force Ukraine to investigate Biden; both Trump and Giuliani seemed to confirm that there was such a connection.[30]

In an October 8, 2019 letter to House Democratic leaders, the White House stated it would not cooperate with "your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances."[31] The eight-page letter was widely interpreted by legal analysts as containing political rather than legal arguments.[32][33][34][35][36]
---
Ok let's discuss this further because I'm not seeing what you are claiming. Just because some left leaning individual declares a travesty has happened and it deserves impeachment isn't equivalent to holding a vote on an actual resolution of impeachment.

I completely agree we are at the count of 2 formal votes (three if you count Mueller obstruction - I know a vote was held under the House Judiciary Committee but I'd defer that it is going to be lumped w/ the Ukraine scandal as both have Obstruction of Justice and that will only be served under a single article of impeachment.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Well we will agree to disagree. Obstruction of justice is pretty cut and dry for the Ukraine Scandal. Feel free to discuss with any attorneys you know.

Here's a few more. I read a list some days back that was linked from the Fox News Comment Forums pertaining to every time Congress has brought it up on the floor (as related to separate causes). I should have bookmarked it. Basically, the Democratic Congress has brought it up 9 previous times based on 9 different reasons in one form or another. To what extent it was discussed or how far they got I don't recall. I'll try to go back and find the source. Though, as you can see from the link below there's more than the 2 you found. I guess it's a numbers game based on what you consider an "attempt", but I would agree that bringing up the subject in Congress with an unique reason would count as 1 attempt.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/09/8472438/president-trump-impeachment-history

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Xzi said:
I don't enjoy having to repeat myself, but since you apparently have a very low level of reading comprehension, let me say it again: collusion is not a legal term. I'll gladly admit that Trump's not guilty of it, because that's a meaningless admission. The investigation into whether he committed CONSPIRACY is still ongoing in that the outcome of the Roger Stone trial was tied to that investigation in a number of ways. I couldn't possibly care less if the idea that it's still ongoing triggers you, there will be more developments to come, that's just the reality of the situation.

Oh, so now it's a CONSPIRACY. I almost forgot how the Liberals like to play word games. I mean, this current impeachment effort has gone through how many different words as reasons? Did your parties focus group help you come up with the word CONSPIRACY or did you learn how to substitute that on your own? The thing is, you can rename it to anything you want. You can rename an apple to a pear and then claim you're not holding an apple, but I'm not a 5 year old. Repeat after me "Trump .... isn't .... guilty." I understand, you're not allowed to utter those words. It's okay. I know the truth and since I'm the adult that's all that matters.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but statements don't get much more moronic than this. If Democrats wanted to initiate impeachment sooner, they would have. They have the majority in the House, so they don't need to "attempt" anything.

If you want to suggest that the Mueller investigation was somehow an attempt to impeach, that's fine, but it just so happens that investigation was both started by a Republican and led by a Republican.

They needed cooperation from the majority of their own party. Bringing it up the 9 previous times didn't garnish enough support from their in house focus groups. They kept discussing stuff until they found something they thought would actually work out for them. Seeings as I've now listed 2 sources with various attempts your denial is showing. Seek help immediately.

RationalityIsLost101 · Nov 22, 2019

I guess in the end I have to say my view of the whole impeachment attempt has to be something concrete, not a news report, not a stump speech. Vote or no dice because talk is cheap.

But I did learn something and that is the house voted 58–364 margin in December of 2017. Now if Democrats just were out to impeach the president without any recourse I'm surprised that number was so low. Most either did not want to face backlash from constituents or they genuinely didn't support impeachment.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll658.xml

So that link you posted has references to dates where it's discussed but yea I'm only seeing # actual votes being 3 (again only 3 if you count judiciary committee vote- that didn't go to the house if I understand), I'm curious though if you end up finding that other link let me know.

Xzi · Nov 22, 2019

cots said:
Oh, so now it's a CONSPIRACY. I almost forgot how the Liberals like to play word games. I mean, this current impeachment effort has gone through how many different words as reasons? Did your one man focus group help you come up with the word CONSPIRACY or did you learn how to substitute that on your own?

It's the exact same legal term that was used in reference to the Mueller investigation from beginning to end. It's not my fault if you're years behind on the basic facts. It's no wonder you can't process what's happening in the impeachment inquiry now.

cots said:
They needed cooperation from the majority of their own party. Bringing it up the 9 previous times didn't garnish enough support from their in house focus groups. They kept discussing stuff until they found something they thought would actually work out for them. Seeings as I've now listed 2 sources with various attempts your denial is showing. Seek help immediately.

Oh I see, so it's your ridiculous bias which has lead you to believe that even mentioning the word impeachment is the same thing as attempting to initiate the process. How very childish.

cots · Nov 22, 2019

RationalityIsLost101 said:
I guess in the end I have to say my view of the whole impeachment attempt has to be something concrete, not a news report, not a stump speech. Vote or no dice because talk is cheap.

But I did learn something and that is the house voted 58–364 margin in December of 2017. Now if Democrats just were out to impeach the president without any recourse I'm surprised that number was so low. Most either did not want to face backlash from constituents or they genuinely didn't support impeachment.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll658.xml

So that link you posted has references to dates where it's discussed but yea I'm only seeing # actual votes being 3 (again only 3 if you count judiciary committee vote- that didn't go to the house if I understand), I'm curious though if you end up finding that other link let me know.

I'll look, but I read hundreds of news articles per day between the 20 or so news sites I read, out of those maybe 10 are on Fox. I'll have to see if there's a way to index and search the forums or something. I'll try that and my google'fo. What the page considered attempts was Congress discussing impeachment based on separate reasons. The simple act of bringing up "do you think we can impeach Trump for X" regardless of how far it got was considered an attempt. Like I replied to @Xzi the Democrats were looking for a reason they could sell to the public in this entire premeditated effort. The first 9 reasons didn't garnish enough support to pursue. I wouldn't consider the ones they voted on the only attempts. As they their agenda has been to attempt to impeach Trump at any cost each reason they would bring up regardless of how far it went I would consider an attempt.

"Hello my fellow Congressmen. I got a new reason to try to impeach Trump. X is the reason. Let's spend time looking into if we can sell it to the public to fulfill our promise of impeaching Trump".

That sounds like an attempt to me.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Xzi said:
It's the exact same legal term that was used in reference to the Mueller investigation from beginning to end. It's not my fault if you're years behind on the basic facts. It's no wonder you can't process what's happening in the impeachment inquiry now.

Oh I see, so it's your ridiculous bias which has lead you to believe that even mentioning the word impeachment is the same thing as attempting to initiate the process. How very childish.

"Trump .... isn't .... guilty." Say it 3 times in a row.

Now go to bed.

Xzi · Nov 22, 2019

cots said:
"Trump .... isn't .... guilty." Say it 3 times in a row.

Now go to bed.

I'll take your pathetic attempt at deflection as a concession. If we're just making up our own facts now like you have with the "ten impeachment attempts" horse shit, then as far as I'm concerned, Trump was found guilty of incest and pedophilia long ago.

cots · Nov 22, 2019

Xzi said:
I'll take your pathetic attempt at deflection as a concession. If we're just making up our own facts now like you have with the "ten impeachment attempts" horse shit, then as far as I'm concerned, Trump was found guilty of incest and pedophilia long ago.

Well, I'm still assuming I won the Powerball Lotto Wednesday, but for some reason the Jackpot is still at $90 million. I tried calling them 9 times to tell them that since I assumed I've won they need to immediately transfer the funds to my bank account in the Cayman Islands. You know, so when I board the Luxury Yacht that I randomly pick from the Boca Raton Inlet and assume is mine and travel there I'll have enough money to buy a house that I overheard from two other people that they said is on sale. Though, they didn't listen and I'm going to have to call back a 10th time.

Xzi · Nov 22, 2019

cots said:
Well, I'm still assuming I won the Powerball Lotto Wednesday, but for some reason the Jackpot is still at $90 million. I tried calling them 9 times to tell them that since I assumed I've won they need to immediately transfer the funds to my bank account in the Cayman Islands. You know, so when I board the Luxury Yacht that I randomly pick from the Boca Raton Inlet and assume is mine and travel there I'll have enough money to buy a house that I overheard from two other people that they said is on sale. Though, they didn't listen and I'm going to have to call back a 10th time.

That's nice, I'm sure they'll cave eventually. Then you'll have enough money to have anyone who has dirt on you suicided, just like Trump ordered Barr to suicide Epstein.

RationalityIsLost101 · Nov 22, 2019

cots said:
I'll look, but I read hundreds of news articles per day between the 20 or so news sites I read, out of those maybe 10 are on Fox. I'll have to see if there's a way to index and search the forums or something. I'll try that and my google'fo. What the page considered attempts was Congress discussing impeachment based on separate reasons. The simple act of bringing up "do you think we can impeach Trump for X" regardless of how far it got was considered an attempt. Like I replied to @Xzi the Democrats were looking for a reason they could sell to the public in this entire premeditated effort. The first 9 reasons didn't garnish enough support to pursue. I wouldn't consider the ones they voted on the only attempts. As they their agenda has been to attempt to impeach Trump at any cost each reason they would bring up regardless of how far it went I would consider an attempt.

Just to be fair and balanced I decided to google and found this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama I wasn't aware of any of these which is kind of an embarrassment as I thought I followed politics pretty well. But during the Obama years I still held a high-stress job so I was mainly looking at highlights. It is noteworthy that there were no votes held or at least from what I found.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

Bush had a handful of votes in the house for impeachment, they occurred near the end of his term, two by the same individual.

"The most significant of these efforts occurred on June 10, 2008, when Congressman Dennis Kucinich, along with co-sponsor Robert Wexler, introduced 35 articles of impeachment [1] against Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives.[2] The House voted 251 to 166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee on June 11, where no further action was taken on it.[3] Bush's presidency ended on January 20, 2009, with the completion of his second term in office, rendering impeachment efforts moot."

I couldn't find anything on Bill Clinton due to him actually getting impeached, I presume this was his only instance of impeachment.

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

cots · Nov 22, 2019

RationalityIsLost101 said:
Just to be fair and balanced I decided to google and found this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama I wasn't aware of any of these which is kind of an embarrassment as I thought I followed politics pretty well. But during the Obama years I still held a high-stress job so I was mainly looking at highlights. It is noteworthy that there were no votes held or at least from what I found.

The thing about Obama is that when he won even after some fringe elements of the Republican Party were all about the Birther crap the majority of the party accepted defeat and didn't conspire to abuse the impeachment process to remove him from office. I fear now that the Democrats have opened this can of worms if one of their candidates win the Presidential Election in 2020 the Republicans will immediately try to impeach the winner and the Democrats would be forced to go along with it. Though, Republicans usually agree to the rules and then accept they lost and move on, but if for some reason they did want to get rid of the Democratic winner they'd have precedent to abuse the system. Seeings as how Liberal the Liberals are being with it I think maybe some new rules should be created to limit abuse. It's too bad the Democrats couldn't play by the rules and accept they lost, but as usual they're causing a mess that the Republicans will be left to clean up.

Personally, if one of the Democratic candidates win I'll accept he or she is the new President and give them the benefit of the doubt and the respect that should be given to any President. I didn't discriminate against Obama. I didn't agree with a lot of the things he did, but I'm really glad I have my health care right now and it's thanks to him. Luckily, I'm not a Liberal so I can deal with reality in a proper fashion. I'm glad to say no matter who wins I'm not going to be living a miserable life. Since being full of hatred and intolerance are Liberal traits I'm glad I broke free from the party. I just need to work on forgiving them for lying to me for 16 years and throwing me to the curb when I started to ask questions and think for myself. Of course I wouldn't expect the pre-school Liberals on this forum to even comprehend what I have to say. They'd read a few key words that trigger them and then totally miss the point because they're so focused on their hatred, compiled with their bias and of course the fact they aren't allowed to have a different perspective on things other than what they're told to have on issues. It's pretty sad when you think about it. I go from hating them, to feeling sorry for them, to laughing at them then back to hating them.

Ev1l0rd · Nov 22, 2019

cots said:
You see, unlike the Liberals I deal with reality, logic and facts. So far based on these things that I value the Democrats have not produced any solid evidence. All they have so far is circumstantial, hearsay and assumptions. Stupid people like @Xzi and @Ev1l0rd are the reason why the Liberals are getting away with this shit.

Given how you seem to desire to call me out here as being "stupid", I just want to say this:

In an ideal situation I'd want to see the White House be able to properly refute this impeachment effort. If, as you keep constantly claiming this entire thing is just a political game by the Democrats to get rid of Trump, then that would mean the case itself is going to be trash too, would it not? Unfortunately, it would appear that the evidence does not side with the White House here, so instead of being able to properly refute the accusations leveled against the White House, House Republicans and the administration would rather complain about the investigation efforts themselves and attempt to downplay the incidents or exclude Trump from them.

I'm not a clever person by any means, never claimed to be. That said, if I look at this from a rational point of view (which generally speaking I try to do in these cases), all I see is the Republicans constantly complain about the investigation itself being a whole bunch of horseshit whereas Democrats seem to have turned every stone to find the truth. If I look at which "side" (although I personally despise the fact that the Republicans are trying to paint this as a "sides" issue) is being more involved with actually attempting to figure out what happened and what the truth is, the Democrats are more involved as opposed to the Republicans who keep complaining about the process rather than the actual results.

cots · Nov 22, 2019

Ev1l0rd said:
Given how you seem to desire to call me out here as being "stupid", I just want to say this:

In an ideal situation I'd want to see the White House be able to properly refute this impeachment effort. If, as you keep constantly claiming this entire thing is just a political game by the Democrats to get rid of Trump, then that would mean the case itself is going to be trash too, would it not? Unfortunately, it would appear that the evidence does not side with the White House here, so instead of being able to properly refute the accusations leveled against the White House, House Republicans and the administration would rather complain about the investigation efforts themselves and attempt to downplay the incidents or exclude Trump from them.

I'm not a clever person by any means, never claimed to be. That said, if I look at this from a rational point of view (which generally speaking I try to do in these cases), all I see is the Republicans constantly complain about the investigation itself being a whole bunch of horseshit whereas Democrats seem to have turned every stone to find the truth. If I look at which "side" (although I personally despise the fact that the Republicans are trying to paint this as a "sides" issue) is being more involved with actually attempting to figure out what happened and what the truth is, the Democrats are more involved as opposed to the Republicans who keep complaining about the process rather than the actual results.

That would be believable and actually rational if the entire thing wasn't planned before Trump took office. You're simply ignoring the history behind the current situation and the motivation behind it. Taken out of context anything can be made to look legitimate. They're turning over every stone they can find looking for reasons to impeach him and have been for years. Seeings as this was setup and planned from the start I support Trump not giving them anything unless he's legally forced to by the courts. I'm pretty sure that whatever he hands over will then be used against him (even if it's unrelated to whatever the Liberals rename the charges to this time). They're simply following him around waiting for him to make a mistake they can sell to the public for impeachment. If you follow a driver around for 400 miles you're bound to witness them violating a traffic law. No one deserves to be followed around for 400 miles just because they won a competition against you and you can't get over the fact you lost. That's akin to stalking and harassment. I wonder after the Senate clears him if there will be another attempt. After all, the goal is to remove him from office by any means necessary regardless of the reason (as opposed to accepting you lost and working with him).

Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

Well-Known Member

Banned!

Well-Known Member

Banned!

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Banned!

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Banned!

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Banned!

Time to fly, 621

Banned!

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Banned!

(⌐◥▶◀◤) girl - noirscape

Banned!

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum