• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The precedent this whole mess of an impeachment has set is tantalizing..

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Think about what the dimwits have done here. Hypothetically speaking, say Congress approves a bill and it passes both houses, but the sitting President veto's the Bill. If the house is controlled by the opposition party, they can file articles of impeachment for "obstruction of Congress", no need to secure the votes to override the veto, just impeach the mother ****er, how dare he veto the will of congress.. Doesn't have to be a crime, the very nature of obstructing the will of congress is enough now to impeach. Policy differences, schmolicy differences..

What a disaster that has all become.

By intentionally sending articles of impeachment without any crime, and the vagueness within, the dimwits have set a precedent that may have far reaching implications down the road. All the house needs to claim is that the sitting President vetoed the Bill based on political gain, or intent to gain personally and politically from the veto.. Boom, impeach the mother ****er..

Stupid dimwits!

Tim-
 
You had me at dimwits. :thumbs:

Describes Democrats perfectly.

:)
 
Think about what the dimwits have done here. Hypothetically speaking, say Congress approves a bill and it passes both houses, but the sitting President veto's the Bill. If the house is controlled by the opposition party, they can file articles of impeachment for "obstruction of Congress", no need to secure the votes to override the veto, just impeach the mother ****er, how dare he veto the will of congress.. Doesn't have to be a crime, the very nature of obstructing the will of congress is enough now to impeach. Policy differences, schmolicy differences..

What a disaster that has all become.

By intentionally sending articles of impeachment without any crime, and the vagueness within, the dimwits have set a precedent that may have far reaching implications down the road. All the house needs to claim is that the sitting President vetoed the Bill based on political gain, or intent to gain personally and politically from the veto.. Boom, impeach the mother ****er..

Stupid dimwits!

Tim-
Why are you assuming there was/is no crime?
 
Think about what the dimwits have done here. Hypothetically speaking, say Congress approves a bill and it passes both houses, but the sitting President veto's the Bill. If the house is controlled by the opposition party, they can file articles of impeachment for "obstruction of Congress", no need to secure the votes to override the veto, just impeach the mother ****er, how dare he veto the will of congress.. Doesn't have to be a crime, the very nature of obstructing the will of congress is enough now to impeach. Policy differences, schmolicy differences..

What a disaster that has all become.

By intentionally sending articles of impeachment without any crime, and the vagueness within, the dimwits have set a precedent that may have far reaching implications down the road. All the house needs to claim is that the sitting President vetoed the Bill based on political gain, or intent to gain personally and politically from the veto.. Boom, impeach the mother ****er..

Stupid dimwits!

Tim-

Excellent rendition of where this has gone.
 
Why are you assuming there was/is no crime?

Neither of the articles of impeachment against President Trump identify an actual crime committed by the president. The first time that has been true in any presidential impeachment proceedings.
 
Prior impeachments already had articles that were not crimes but "abuse of power" articles. So no, this is not a new precedent.
 
Think about what the dimwits have done here. Hypothetically speaking, say Congress approves a bill and it passes both houses, but the sitting President veto's the Bill. If the house is controlled by the opposition party, they can file articles of impeachment for "obstruction of Congress", no need to secure the votes to override the veto, just impeach the mother ****er, how dare he veto the will of congress.. Doesn't have to be a crime, the very nature of obstructing the will of congress is enough now to impeach. Policy differences, schmolicy differences..

What a disaster that has all become.

By intentionally sending articles of impeachment without any crime, and the vagueness within, the dimwits have set a precedent that may have far reaching implications down the road. All the house needs to claim is that the sitting President vetoed the Bill based on political gain, or intent to gain personally and politically from the veto.. Boom, impeach the mother ****er..

Stupid dimwits!

Tim-
That you think a President refusing to turnover documents subpoenaed by the Congress without a lawful excuse, is the same as a President vetoing a bill, demonstrates very well you have no idea what you're talking about.

Refusing to turnover documents subpoenaed by Congress without a lawful excuse is a felony.
 
Think about what the dimwits have done here. Hypothetically speaking, say Congress approves a bill and it passes both houses, but the sitting President veto's the Bill. If the house is controlled by the opposition party, they can file articles of impeachment for "obstruction of Congress", no need to secure the votes to override the veto, just impeach the mother ****er, how dare he veto the will of congress.. Doesn't have to be a crime, the very nature of obstructing the will of congress is enough now to impeach. Policy differences, schmolicy differences..

What a disaster that has all become.

By intentionally sending articles of impeachment without any crime, and the vagueness within, the dimwits have set a precedent that may have far reaching implications down the road. All the house needs to claim is that the sitting President vetoed the Bill based on political gain, or intent to gain personally and politically from the veto.. Boom, impeach the mother ****er..

Stupid dimwits!

Tim-

Zoe Lofgren, in response to a question with regard to what the level of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt", "preponderance of the evidence", etc) should be in an impeachment said, essentially, that there need be no standard. That's where we are with this process.
 
Neither of the articles of impeachment against President Trump identify an actual crime committed by the president. The first time that has been true in any presidential impeachment proceedings.
Misuse of public funds for political gain and contempt of Congress are felonies.
 
Think about what the dimwits have done here.

Irony of the week award. Just think, if the president is made commander in chief, then he can order the military to kill the Congress and courts and declare himself emperor!
 
Zoe Lofgren, in response to a question with regard to what the level of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt", "preponderance of the evidence", etc) should be in an impeachment said, essentially, that there need be no standard. That's where we are with this process.

No, this is where we are:

[video]https://www.thedailybeast.com/dershowitz-argues-quid-pro-quo-ok-because-trump-re-election-is-in-the-public-interest[/video]
 
That you think a President refusing to turnover documents subpoenaed by the Congress without a lawful excuse, is the same as a President vetoing a bill, demonstrates very well you have no idea what you're talking about.

Refusing to turnover documents subpoenaed by Congress without a lawful excuse is a felony.

These Trump supporters have no shame.

They're basically just Nixon supporters.
 
Think about what the dimwits have done here. Hypothetically speaking, say Congress approves a bill and it passes both houses, but the sitting President veto's the Bill. If the house is controlled by the opposition party, they can file articles of impeachment for "obstruction of Congress", no need to secure the votes to override the veto, just impeach the mother ****er, how dare he veto the will of congress.. Doesn't have to be a crime, the very nature of obstructing the will of congress is enough now to impeach. Policy differences, schmolicy differences..

What a disaster that has all become.

By intentionally sending articles of impeachment without any crime, and the vagueness within, the dimwits have set a precedent that may have far reaching implications down the road. All the house needs to claim is that the sitting President vetoed the Bill based on political gain, or intent to gain personally and politically from the veto.. Boom, impeach the mother ****er..

Stupid dimwits!

Tim-

That is farcical in any and every way. What you described is the process laid out in the Constitution; no Congress would impeach a President for adhering to the Constitution. What your trying to "conflate" is an impeachment that would never happen with an impeachment that must needed to happen. It's common consensus that Impeachment does not need a "crime"; though, in this case extorting favors, using public funds, from a foreign nation, for personal gain is not only impeachable but IS a crime.
 
don't extort other countries for bribes and then obstruct congress, and you should be just fine.
 
Think about what the dimwits have done here. Hypothetically speaking, say Congress approves a bill and it passes both houses, but the sitting President veto's the Bill. If the house is controlled by the opposition party, they can file articles of impeachment for "obstruction of Congress", no need to secure the votes to override the veto, just impeach the mother ****er, how dare he veto the will of congress.. Doesn't have to be a crime, the very nature of obstructing the will of congress is enough now to impeach. Policy differences, schmolicy differences..

What a disaster that has all become.

By intentionally sending articles of impeachment without any crime, and the vagueness within, the dimwits have set a precedent that may have far reaching implications down the road. All the house needs to claim is that the sitting President vetoed the Bill based on political gain, or intent to gain personally and politically from the veto.. Boom, impeach the mother ****er..

Stupid dimwits!

Tim-

Yeah, I mean it is so much easier to get votes in the senate to convict than it is to get votes in the senate to override a veto...67 is so much greater than 67. You nailed it there!
 
Yeah, I mean it is so much easier to get votes in the senate to convict than it is to get votes in the senate to override a veto...67 is so much greater than 67. You nailed it there!

Overriding a veto takes 60 votes in the Senate.
 
Irony of the week award. Just think, if the president is made commander in chief, then he can order the military to kill the Congress and courts and declare himself emperor!

You know American soldiers would never obey such orders. Their promotions have to be approved by Congress. And the U.S. president is already commander in chief of our armed forces anyway
 
Think about what the dimwits have done here. Hypothetically speaking, say Congress approves a bill and it passes both houses, but the sitting President veto's the Bill. If the house is controlled by the opposition party, they can file articles of impeachment for "obstruction of Congress", no need to secure the votes to override the veto, just impeach the mother ****er, how dare he veto the will of congress.. Doesn't have to be a crime, the very nature of obstructing the will of congress is enough now to impeach. Policy differences, schmolicy differences..

What a disaster that has all become.

By intentionally sending articles of impeachment without any crime, and the vagueness within, the dimwits have set a precedent that may have far reaching implications down the road. All the house needs to claim is that the sitting President vetoed the Bill based on political gain, or intent to gain personally and politically from the veto.. Boom, impeach the mother ****er..

Stupid dimwits!

Tim-

That is a hypothetical and an analogy from outer space. So NO! It is so absurd it can't even be argued. There is NOTHING in this IMPEACHMENT that infringes on the President's veto power nor even creates a bridge to infringement of the President's veto power. RIDICULOUS!

The remedy to a Presidential veto is override. THATS IT!

Oh by the way, override requires a super-majority. The same thing it takes to Remove an Impeached President. So arguing that the House would attempt to Impeach and the Senate go to trial for Removal is simply laughable when you need the same vote and get too it much faster via override. Such an effort to Impeach would never get out of the House and on to a Senate Trial unless of course there is a bunch of dimwit Trumpettes in House and Senate and a Dem President. Trumpettes might try it because they will try ANYTHING.
 
Last edited:
The Q&A portion of the hearing has been very telling. The demeanor of the managers and the President's counsel was interesting to watch. That includes Chief Justice Roberts. At one point Dershowitz gave a fiery response and at the end Chief Justice Roberts thanked him as he did after every person that spoke but with Dershowitz he thanked him twice.

I do believe the argument the President's attorneys made combating the House managers claim that Trump obstructed Congress was very powerful. They laid out that President Trump followed the advice of his counsel and the DOJ to the letter in regard to his executive rights. I will not be surprised to see even Democrats vote against the article of abuse of Congress.

I also think the President's attorneys have made some significant blows to the House managers for their shoddy procedures in the House. At one point some Republican senators asked Shiff a question that had in part to do with procedure and he danced all around it. So the Republicans waited till they had a turn at asking another question and stated to Schiff he did not answer the question and asked it again.

I have to say a name on President Trump's defense I have never heard before, Patrick Philbin, is extraordinary. I would not be surprised to see him some day sitting on the high court.
 
The Q&A portion of the hearing has been very telling. The demeanor of the managers and the President's counsel was interesting to watch. That includes Chief Justice Roberts. At one point Dershowitz gave a fiery response and at the end Chief Justice Roberts thanked him as he did after every person that spoke but with Dershowitz he thanked him twice.

I do believe the argument the President's attorneys made combating the House managers claim that Trump obstructed Congress was very powerful. They laid out that President Trump followed the advice of his counsel and the DOJ to the letter in regard to his executive rights. I will not be surprised to see even Democrats vote against the article of abuse of Congress.

I also think the President's attorneys have made some significant blows to the House managers for their shoddy procedures in the House. At one point some Republican senators asked Shiff a question that had in part to do with procedure and he danced all around it. So the Republicans waited till they had a turn at asking another question and stated to Schiff he did not answer the question and asked it again.

I have to say a name on President Trump's defense I have never heard before, Patrick Philbin, is extraordinary. I would not be surprised to see him some day sitting on the high court.

Philbin is the best the Trump Team has for this format which is why he is taking the bulk of the questions by far. Then again, the bar is set pretty low as the rest of the Trump team is pond scum relative to this format.
 
Now this PHilbin argument about Crimes is total BS. Now he is almost Sekulow level off the rails.
 
If the Dem Senators don't start asking relevant questions I am going to lose my mind.

Has the President been Impeached for emoluments violations. Is he Impeached for nepotism? Is he Impeached based on the acts of his children.

For God sake!!!!!!
 
Philbin:
"Burisma and Hunter Biden warrants investigation"

OK, why is the DOJ not investigating? Why didn't they investigate? Why send drunken Rudy off to elicit an investigation out of a foreign government?

Why didn't the GOP majority House of the time conduct oversight on the Bidens if they thought it warranted?
 
Back
Top Bottom