Impeaching Donald Trump

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard, your self-righteousness borders with religious fanaticism.

You seem to believe that if I support Trump that something must be wrong with my value system. I have no intention to justify my value system and world view to you. You seem to believe that it is duty of innocent people to prove their innocence. I, and the whole western judicial system, strongly disagree. Your stance reminds me of the religious theory that atheists can not be moral people, as the only possible morality comes from belief in God.

As expected, once again no answer from you.

You have not provided a single answer of substance in this thread Slobodan. You answer based on a a priori principle that Trump is a victim. In the process completely disregarding facts.

If someone is acting as a religious bigot here it’s you my friend. Where has your critical mind gone?

You claim more life experiences, more knowledge and intelligence. I am not disputing any of that. But the best proof of these great qualities would be to admit that you are misguided on this topic.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

That's funny.  It's exactly what I think of people on the left.

You know it’s very simple. It’s a statistical thing.

When 99% of the media, in the US and outside the US, say the same thing, most reasonable people disagreeing with their views start to question their own system of belief.

Instead you keep entrenching yourself deeper and deeper.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

You know it’s very simple. It’s a statistical thing.

When 99% of the media, in the US and outside the US, say the same thing, most reasonable people disagreeing with their views start to question their own system of belief.

Instead you keep entrenching yourself deeper and deeper.

Cheers,
Bernard

Like with the Mueller Report before it was published? 

[James Clark]

No offense, but have you lost your mind? 

I cant imagine a worse way to screw the pooch on this.  Setting aside the fact that I am not for impeachment and feel it is only going to hurt the Dems (as opposed to censure that would have probably helped them), this creates so many headaches. 

First, think about how this would have played if they followed procedure.  Presumably they would have spent Thursday deciding on who the managers would be and organized delivery for Friday.  Doing so would have kept the noise to a minimum from distracting from the debate and gave Republicans the least amount of time to organized and respond before going on break.  Trump would then need to spend the next two weeks defending himself and mounting his legal response.  Then, the Dems in the safe districts could have went home and crowed about how they impeached the president.  I still feel it would have been a disaster for the swing district Dems though. 

This, on the other hand, is an unmitigated catastrophe.  Withholding the articles apparently pissed off Noah Feldman (one of the legal scholars the Dems called to testify) so much so he penned an article in Bloomberg News that Trump really has not been impeached yet.  Although there is a legal debate if impeachment happens after the vote or after the articles are delivered, it still means the Dems really cant fully brag about impeaching Trump yet.  On top of that, this completely plays into Trump's narrative that the impeachment is nothing but a partisan scam from the Do Nothing Dems and every other Republican talking point.  Add to that that congress is not in session and not making any noise, meaning any political news coming out of DC will be what Trump wants it to be.  He is going to dominate the news cycle with this for two weeks, as opposed to having to defend himself.  Furthermore, Republicans are now not under any pressure to organize yet (or not as much) and can enjoy the holiday while also tweeting about the Do Nothing Dems.  And on top of this, the swing district Dems are still just as screwed.  Last, this little stunt really has no leverage what so ever over McConnell and ensures he can just chug along at getting judges approved. 

It is a really kind of interesting watching such a shrewd politician fall from grace.  Pelosi's legacy is going to be loosing the house while ensuring Trump's re-election.

I get paid pretty well to tell people how and when to place media for impact, so appeal to authority notwithstanding and all that, I can tell you a few things:

1) the surest way to kill something is to dump it in the news Friday or before a holiday.  Relatively speaking,  nobody’s gonna care about this for about 2 weeks.  No dems are gonna go home for Christmas and get harassed in their districts by swing voters. Not gonna happen.

2) What was happening over the Christmas holiday in 2019 will be totally irrelevant in November 2020. Pelosi is playing a long game - always has been because she knowns that if she keeps giving Trump rope, the dumbass will keep strangling himself. (There’s an autoerotic asphixiation joke in there somewhere.)

3) I can’t fathom why you’re on about judges in this conversation. That’s gonna happen regardless of what Nancy Pelosi does,  because McConnell is a total toady.

[BernardLanguillier]

Like with the Mueller Report before it was published?

Yes. The selective reading done by Trump supporters of the Mueller reports is not aligned with what the majority of the press had reported, but the reality of the report is very close.

Joe, we have demonstrated with obvious clarity in the last 2 pages of discussion that you purposedely deform the facts to map them to your views. Unsurprisingly we see the same on the Mueller report too.

You transformed the real situation “Sonderland confirmed the quid pro quo” in “Sonderland confirmed there was no quid pro quo” leveraging the fact that Trump has denied the quid pro quo. This is not a mistake on your part. It’s on purpose and it shows that you are ok with lying to help your case.

For you this isn’t about the truth. This is about not losing power. Everything you are accusing Democrats of has just been proven with perfect clarity to be your own play.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

I get paid pretty well to tell people how and when to place media for impact, so appeal to authority notwithstanding and all that, I can tell you a few things:

1) the surest way to kill something is to dump it in the news Friday or before a holiday.  Relatively speaking,  nobody’s gonna care about this for about 2 weeks.  No dems are gonna go home for Christmas and get harassed in their districts by swing voters. Not gonna happen.

2) What was happening over the Christmas holiday in 2019 will be totally irrelevant in November 2020. Pelosi is playing a long game - always has been because she knowns that if she keeps giving Trump rope, the dumbass will keep strangling himself. (There’s an autoerotic asphixiation joke in there somewhere.)

3) I can’t fathom why you’re on about judges in this conversation. That’s gonna happen regardless of what Nancy Pelosi does,  because McConnell is a total toady.

Perhaps your right.

[JoeKitchen]

Yes. The selective reading done by Trump supporters of the Mueller reports is not aligned with what the majority of the press had reported, but the reality of the report is very close.

Joe, we have demonstrated with obvious clarity in the last 2 pages of discussion that you purposedely deform the facts to map them to your views. Unsurprisingly we see the same on the Mueller report too.

You transformed the real situation “Sonderland confirmed the quid pro quo” in “Sonderland confirmed there was no quid pro quo” leveraging the fact that Trump has denied the quid pro quo. This is not a mistake on your part. It’s on purpose and it shows that you are ok with lying to help your case.

For you this isn’t about the truth. This is about not losing power. Everything you are accusing Democrats of has just been proven with perfect clarity to be your own play.

Cheers,
Bernard

Lol Bernard. 

As I’ve said before, if the case was as strong as you claim, there would be actual criminal charges in the articles.  There are not.  And if the Dems actually had the conviction of their accusations, they would have challenged Trump in the courts, like with Nixon. 

[Alan Klein]

Yes. The selective reading done by Trump supporters of the Mueller reports is not aligned with what the majority of the press had reported, but the reality of the report is very close.

Joe, we have demonstrated with obvious clarity in the last 2 pages of discussion that you purposedely deform the facts to map them to your views. Unsurprisingly we see the same on the Mueller report too.

You transformed the real situation “Sonderland confirmed the quid pro quo” in “Sonderland confirmed there was no quid pro quo” leveraging the fact that Trump has denied the quid pro quo. This is not a mistake on your part. It’s on purpose and it shows that you are ok with lying to help your case.

For you this isn’t about the truth. This is about not losing power. Everything you are accusing Democrats of has just been proven with perfect clarity to be your own play.

Cheers,
Bernard

Mueller not only didn't find that Trump colluded with the Russians.   He found that neither did any of the Trump kids noR Anyone in the Trump campaign. In fact not one American out of 330 million did Mueller find who colluded. Yet you still claim he's guilty.  It seems that you're the one who can't accept the facts.

[BernardLanguillier]

Lol Bernard. 

As I’ve said before, if the case was as strong as you claim, there would be actual criminal charges in the articles.  There are not.  And if the Dems actually had the conviction of their accusations, they would have challenged Trump in the courts, like with Nixon.

Abuse of power is perfectly relevant and a clear violation of the constitution.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

Abuse of power is perfectly relevant and a clear violation of the constitution.

Cheers,
Bernard

Politicians violate the constitution all the time.   However, impeachment requires a special crime to be committed: "Treason,  bribery,  or other high crimes and  misdemeanors".   At worse,  political hijinks occurred.  With presidents going to war without required congressional authority, and never impeached for it,  any problems people have with Trump should be decided when they vote in 2020.

[BernardLanguillier]

Mueller not only didn't find that Trump colluded with the Russians.   He found that neither did any of the Trump kids noR Anyone in the Trump campaign. In fact not one American out of 330 million did Mueller find who colluded. Yet you still claim he's guilty.  It seems that you're the one who can't accept the facts.

I have not written that Mueller found Trump to be guilty, I meant that the report was a lot more nuanced, and therefore closer to initial reports than Republicans would have you believe.

But anyway, this isn’t relevant at this point.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Politicians violate the constitution all the time.   However, impeachment requires a special crime to be committed: "Treason,  bribery,  or other high crimes and  misdemeanors".   At worse,  political hijinks occurred.  With presidents going to war without required congressional authority, and never impeached for it,  any problems people have with Trump should be decided when they vote in 2020.

No, politicians don’t violate the constitution all the time. US Presidents never do.

But I take it as a final admission that Trump did and am glad you are coming to terms with reality.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Politicians violate the constitution all the time.

Really?

And that makes it okay?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

No, politicians don’t violate the constitution all the time. US Presidents never do...

Of course they do, just not “all the time,” but some of the time. Every time the SCOTUS strikes down a law as unconstitutional (previously passed by politicians), it means that politicians initially violated the constitution. The same goes for presidential executive orders. It shall be noted that so far the SCOTUS mostly supported Trump’s executive orders as constitutional. 

[BernardLanguillier]

Of course they do, just not “all the time,” but some of the time. Every time the SCOTUS strikes down a law as unconstitutional (previously passed by politicians), it means that politicians initially violated the constitution. The same goes for presidential executive orders. It shall be noted that so far the SCOTUS mostly supported Trump’s executive orders as constitutional.

So you do confirm that Presidents don’t violate the constitution, right? Including Trump with his executive orders.

US Presidents have a very strong team of lawyers who are very well paid to ensure that their orders are constitutional. And that works except when they by-pass the system and work with private lawyers precisely because they know what they are doing is not constitutional. Like Trump did.

And you do understand that there is a fundamental difference btwn having a legal discussion about the constitutionality of a law reviewed through lawful processes and performing the kind of actions Trump did, right?

It’s so different that I wonder why you consider relevant to raise this point?

Cheers,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

Abuse of power is perfectly relevant and a clear violation of the constitution.

Cheers,
Bernard

I just dont agree this is the case without an actual crime being charged as well.  If there was a real federal crime, perhaps I would take them more seriously.  Or perhaps if the Dems had not been calling for his impeachment for three years, before he was even in office, conducting countless witch hunts, I would me more inclined to take them seriously. 

But weak charges without an actual crime being levied against the president after three years opf constant searching, and doing so because you know your candidates cant beat him, I'll pass thank you. 

BTW, Trump's job approval is up to 50% in the latest polling.  So I think many of my fellow Americans agree with me.  In case you're wondering, Obama's, at the same time in his presidency, was at 42%.   

[RSL]

BTW, Trump's job approval is up to 50% in the latest polling.

Which is a gross underestimate. Considering the kind of reprehensible crap the left does to people who express an appreciation for what Trump has done, it's dangerous for people to tell polls what they really plan to do.

[JoeKitchen]

You know it’s very simple. It’s a statistical thing.

When 99% of the media, in the US and outside the US, say the same thing, most reasonable people disagreeing with their views start to question their own system of belief.

Instead you keep entrenching yourself deeper and deeper.

Cheers,
Bernard

Now that I have access to a key board, I would like to give a further response to this.

Yesterday I was listening to an interview with Sharyl Attkisson, who was a reporter for over 30 years and is now a critic of the media.  She questioned whether you can really trust the media if everyone is reporting the same thing.  She brought up the story of The Atlantic being caught agreeing to cover a speech given by Hillary Clinton in specific favorable terms for advanced access.  The request involved having the story describe the speech as muscular (a rather odd way to describe a speech, stern would have been more appropriate) and then listing the CFR seating plan of those positioned in front of her.   Now the only reason they got caught was by chance from a freedom of information request.  The Atlantic of course responded that they felt the speech was muscular and would have used that (very odd) term anyway, and the seating plan was appropriate to cover. 

Sharyl Attkisson then posed the question, was it only The Atlantic that was asked to do this and we just so happen to catch them, or was everyone in the media in on it and The Atlantic was the one caught.  Well, if you look at all of the other stories covering the event, everyone used that same odd term, muscular, to describe the speech and everyone made sure to list the CFR seating chart.  More then likely everyone was involved in this and The Atlantic just so happened to get the short stick when it came to being caught. 

So point in fact, the collective media has done a very good job at destroying its reputation and trustworthiness.  This is why the majority of Americans don't trust mainstream media anymore.  Then, after one major paper throwing a "Merry Impeachmas" party Wednesday night, it would not surprise me if most USA outlets were secreting corresponding with Dems for access to information (such as leaks from closed door sessions) so long as they wrote articles favorable to the Dems. 

[RSL]

When 99% of the media, in the US and outside the US, say the same thing, most reasonable people disagreeing with their views start to question their own system of belief.
Bernard

No, Bernard, when that happens most reasonable people question the impartiality of the media. In this case the situation is so blatant you can't miss the partiality.

[Alan Klein]

No, politicians don’t violate the constitution all the time. US Presidents never do.

But I take it as a final admission that Trump did and am glad you are coming to terms with reality.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard you distorted my words. I did not say he violated the Constitution. I said at worse case it was political hijinks to make a point.  That even then it would not be impeachable since those acts are not considered as such.    But he's claimed that he went after the Bidens because they are corrupted. The evidence appears that there is something funny going on between Ukrainian corporate officials his son and Biden himself. That calls for investigation. Perfectly legal. Of course the biased press ignores this part of the story to defend Biden and make Trump look guilty.