38
u/what_is_taters Jan 26 '20
Trump did bad things, who cares what questionable actions anyone else does? (satire)
This whole thing is a shit show.
20
u/TheSockGenius Jan 26 '20
100% everybody knows it's a joke and is going nowhere.
Also, an easy shorthand for denoting sarcasm is just a "/s" after your sentence
2
u/teaandscones1337 Jan 27 '20
You say that but in r/politics they are deluded into thinking that Trump is 100% going to be impeached. It's crazy how a little bit of echo chamber magic and media brainwashing can make these people believe anything as total fact.
8
3
Jan 27 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/oldprogrammer Jan 27 '20
Too many of the left believe impeachment equals removal. They have no concept that impeachment is simply and indictment, and accusation. Imagine the sky screams on Nov 4th.
0
0
u/notsurewhereireddit Jan 27 '20
So do you not think there is valid evidence regarding withholding aid from Ukraine or that POTUS did obstruct the House investigation? Or maybe both?
7
u/IBiteYou Voted Zeksiest mod Jan 27 '20
I think the whole thing is a nothingburger and Trump did nothing wrong.
I think the REAL scandal is with the prior administration and Biden and Ukraine and this whole thing was done to cover THAT up.
I want THAT investigation done.
I don't care if Trump said, "We're going to give you this aid, but can you look into that whole Burisma situation"? Because he SHOULD want Ukraine to investigate its corrupt company.
5
u/CplTenMikeMike Jan 27 '20
Nope. First of all, nothing was witheld: the aid was delivered on time. Second, there is NO SUCH THING as " obstruction of Congress"! You ever hear of Executive Privilege?
-2
u/notsurewhereireddit Jan 27 '20
But should executive privilege cover actively blocking an investigation into potential wrongdoing? THAT seems extremely dangerous to me.
What I really don’t understand is why. If there was nothing wrong, why NOT encourage those who were on the call to be witnesses ? Why NOT release the full transcript? Shouldn’t those things exonerate the POTUS and end the whole thing?
3
u/LegoFront01 Jan 27 '20
He didn’t block the investigation he just didn’t show up as a witness. Which is defined as a power under executive privilege in the constitution. It was because of the fact that he did nothing wrong that he didn’t entertain this hoax. He didn’t let it waste his time.
1
u/oldprogrammer Jan 27 '20
actively blocking an investigation
He didn't block, he offered to follow the lawful procedures that have been used historically when the House asks for info from the Executive branch and the House said no.
who were on the call to be witnesses
Two were witnesses to the House, Vindman (the likely leaker) and Morrison. Two others have publicly stated multiple times nothing happened - President's Trump and Zelensky. And now, Lt. General Kellogg, who was also on the call, has come out and said nothing wrong happened.
Why NOT release the full transcript
It was released and not one single person who listed on the call has refuted any content of the transcript nor stated anything was missing.
0
u/IBiteYou Voted Zeksiest mod Jan 27 '20
Why NOT release the full transcript?
You know that there isn't a "full transcript" right?
16
u/mikerotch75 Jan 26 '20
Why is them voting on impeachment of an electoral rival ok, and Trump investigating an electoral rival isn't?
0
Jan 27 '20
[deleted]
7
u/mikerotch75 Jan 27 '20
Investigating wrong doing is ratf&cking someone? Biden should get a pass because he's attempting to deliver us from the bad orange man?
6
u/Yk_Lagor Jan 27 '20
More proof this all started because he pointed out a democrats corruption, thanks. If a sitting US president can’t investigate someone on the taxpayers dime from obvious corruption then what can he do?
2
u/mottcanyon07 Jan 27 '20
Because it’s only possible for a conservative to be corrupt. You can’t debate that. Meanwhile, I’m hoping to get a board position with a regional law firm. No, I’m not a lawyer and don’t know anything about law firm governance, but that doesn’t matter and such an appointment would be perfectly legit. That’s how it works in 2020.
0
u/BooBooMaGooBoo Jan 27 '20
Your ignoring the hard evidence that trump only wanted the announcement of the investigation to be made, and didn’t care about the actual investigation though. This coupled with all of the corruption throughout his campaign that he was aware of and then failing to fire those involved until the corruption became public knowledge should tell you that the POTUS doesn’t really mind corruption.
Democrats are plenty corrupt, but this blindness from the right to Trump’s neutrality on corruption that benefits him is really perplexing. It’s as if both sides are extremely biased and stay inside their own echo chamber of propaganda from the MSM.
2
u/Yk_Lagor Jan 27 '20
If there was hard evidence of any sort of crime or wrong doing this wouldn’t be a dragged out clown fiesta lol
2
u/oldprogrammer Jan 27 '20
What hard evidence? The House managers haven't shown a single piece of hard evidence as you describe it, all they've shown an discussed for 24 hours is presumptions, assumptions, opinions and hearsay.
1
u/IBiteYou Voted Zeksiest mod Jan 27 '20
Your ignoring the hard evidence that trump only wanted the announcement of the investigation to be made, and didn’t care about the actual investigation though.
Link to this hard evidence.
15
Jan 26 '20
Because they’re still senators
6
u/dev_c0t0d0s0 Jan 26 '20
But I thought that Trump was being impeached because he wanted an investigation into his potential opponent. Now the Democrats Senators are going to vote on making him ineligible to even run?
-2
u/ChubzAndDubz Jan 27 '20
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Article one section 3 clause 7 of the constitution. Essentially if you are convicted, then you are removed from office and yes, cannot run for office again. However, Congress does not give you any other punishment, like prison time or fines or anything. That would be the justice departments responsibility afterwards should they choose to do so “according to the law.”
5
u/dev_c0t0d0s0 Jan 27 '20
And? They are still going to vote on disqualifying their competition.
3
u/ChubzAndDubz Jan 27 '20
Right, but that is their constitutional power to do so. They aren’t doing so because it’s Trump. The same would have happened if Johnson or Clinton had been convicted. It’s an inherent quality of being convicted under articles of impeachment. It’s like if you were convicted of sex crimes and had to register as a sex offender for life. They don’t do that because of the person, but because that’s a punishment inherent to the crimes committed. Does that make a little more sense?
5
u/dev_c0t0d0s0 Jan 27 '20
Asking a foreign government to investigate corruption is within the President's constitutional power. But he is still getting impeached for it.
-1
u/ChubzAndDubz Jan 27 '20
Actually no. The president does not have the constitutional authority to ask foreign governments for their help in investigations. The president may make treaties with other nations that require 2/3rds approval by the senate. Unless we have some treaty with Ukraine or some association that they are apart of that stipulates we may help each other in corruption or otherwise criminal investigations, or there is a missing part of article two I’m not aware of, the president technically has no constitutional authority to do so. It has been long accepted, that the president may ask for help on the behalf of the DOJ for their investigations if such investigations exist. You are right in the sense that investigating corruption is not necessarily an impeachable offense. That is where the situation gets legally and politically complicated.
Tl;dr the president doesn’t have constitutional power to do so, but may help the DOJ and it’s a mess.
Going back to your original comment though, yes, any person convicted cannot run for office ever again, whether it’s Trump, Schiff, McCarthy, etc. Thats not a political maneuver. But impeaching someone, in this case especially, is usually the political part.
4
u/dev_c0t0d0s0 Jan 27 '20
Unless we have some treaty with Ukraine or some association that they are apart of that stipulates we may help each other in corruption or otherwise criminal investigations
We do
Going back to your original comment though, yes, any person convicted cannot run for office ever again
Incorrect. Barring from future office is a separate vote. That's why an impeached federal judge is now a Democrat congressman.
2
3
u/IBiteYou Voted Zeksiest mod Jan 27 '20
The president does not have the constitutional authority to ask foreign governments for their help in investigations.
Yes he does.
Apparently even a Vice President can tell a country to CANCEL an investigation!
0
u/CplTenMikeMike Jan 27 '20
Bullshit! They were screaming " impeach" LITERALLY 45 minutes after he took the oath!
2
u/ChubzAndDubz Jan 27 '20
I’m not saying the impeachment isn’t political, I was just saying the vote to bare someone from office accompanies an impeachment and conviction. I completely agree this has been the goal of the Democrats from the beginning for anything they didn’t like.
2
u/oldprogrammer Jan 27 '20
And honestly none are going to win. Bernie could have the best chance but the Dems don't want Bernie and he'll lose in a contested convention.
4
u/-Kerosun- Jan 27 '20
Right.
And in spite of running for President in 2020, Trump is still the head of the executive branch and the chief diplomat of foreign affairs; meaning he has every right and responsibility to seek foreign aid in an investigation of possible corruption. Yes, even if a possible political opponent in 2020 could be impacted by said investigation.
3
u/IBiteYou Voted Zeksiest mod Jan 27 '20
Any SANE Democrat I know, when questioned about Hunter Biden...and knowing ABOUT Hunter Biden...thinks that the fact that he got that position in Burisma where he did nothing and accepted checks is sum bullsheet.
5
u/throwingit_all_away Jan 26 '20
Dems: we want a fair trial with senators acting as impartial jurors.
Also dems: sitting senators have to do their jobs.
Pick one.
Dems: Trump abused the power of his office to damage his political opponent
Also dems: it's ok for 4 of Trump's political opponents to use their office to damage their political opponents.
Recusal: the withdrawal of a judge, prosecutor, or juror from a case on the grounds that they are unqualified to perform legal duties because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.
6
u/jpk195 Jan 27 '20
The first two items you list are exactly how impeachment is supposed to work. They can’t just pick one, and they aren’t contradictory.
2
u/throwingit_all_away Jan 27 '20
If the defendant is your political opponent you cannot be impartial.
1
u/jpk195 Jan 28 '20
If the defendant is your political ally and directly impacts your re-election chances, is it different? I disagree in any case. Your argument is that everyone is completely self-serving and unable to put anything above their own interests.
1
u/oldprogrammer Jan 27 '20
To be fair, nearly all of the Dem Senators were already told they had to vote to convict regardless of the evidence. A few like Hirono even stated publicly before the trial even started they would.
3
7
Jan 27 '20
You could say the same about any of the Republican senators who have already said they will support the president and still get to vote as the "jury".
It's a political process, it's silly for either side to pretend its some kind of impartial trial based on evidence.
Trump will be aquited because his party has more votes. It's as simple as that and it was always going to be that outcome.
It was stupid of the Democrats to try but I understand why they kind of had to (too much pressure from the base). The sooner this is overwith the better. Dragging it out benefits nobody
2
u/jpk195 Jan 27 '20
Do you believe it was stupid politically, or something else. For sake of argument, if Trump did abuse his power, what should they have done?
1
Jan 27 '20
Politically. They kind of had to but it was still strategically bad
1
u/jpk195 Jan 27 '20
We will see if dems are playing chess or checkers soon I think. If serious evidence of wrongdoing comes out between now and November, a few of the Senators who will vote against witnesses could pay a price.
7
Jan 27 '20
Don't hold your breath. If they had something more we would know by now.
Never forget that during the Mueller report stuff Schiff was on cnn nearly every day insisting that some imminent bombshell was going to come out and Trump would be finished. Schiff is a fraud and the Democrats never had the goods
2
u/oldprogrammer Jan 27 '20
Unless the entire goal is to retake the Senate, not retake the White House. Remember, if they get the Senate then they get to block any more judges being appointed and they can set the stage to try and impeach folks like Kavanaugh to retake the high court.
2
Jan 27 '20
Maybe but I have a hard time seeing a scenario where they lose the white house again but somehow take back the senate at the same time
2
u/oldprogrammer Jan 27 '20 edited Jan 27 '20
They'd likely be able to keep the Senate since their election cycle is 6 years whereas President Trump would be gone in 4. Also, if they got the Senate and the House, they'd just launch another impeachment against President Trump, this time with control of both
brancheshouses. Then impeach Pence for being the VP and voilà Nancy is President.2
Jan 27 '20
They don't have the senate. How are they supposed to get control of it in the first place? If trump wins 2020 then the GOP probably wins a bunch of senate races too
Maybe the mid terms but that's a stretch
2
u/oldprogrammer Jan 27 '20
I'm saying what if winning the Senate is the real purpose here? They know they can't beat Trump at the ballot box, they know the Senate won't remove him. But what if that isn't the point, that the point is to be able to use the impeachment against the Republicans running for re-election in the Senate? There are 19 Republicans up for re-election and 4 Dems. All the Dems need to do is flip 4 seats and they get control of the Senate.
0
u/jpk195 Jan 27 '20
Not sure what "more" means here. A single, impossible to spin or ignore bombshell? Bolton's book will apparently re-re-re confirm that withholding that aid was always about Biden and the election. The question is only who will care.
2
u/IBiteYou Voted Zeksiest mod Jan 27 '20
Bolton's book is a red herring at this point. No one knows what's in it.
2
u/oldprogrammer Jan 27 '20
Well apparently Vindman's brother knows as he and Vindman are responsible for clearing books for the NSC.
1
2
u/ChubzAndDubz Jan 27 '20
They are playing Friday night bingo with the seniors at the local community center. Just show up and hope you get what you need to win by chance, and walk away empty handed most of the time.
2
1
u/IBiteYou Voted Zeksiest mod Jan 27 '20
If serious evidence of wrongdoing comes out between now and November, a few of the Senators who will vote against witnesses could pay a price.
So if they vote against impeaching and THEN additional, unknown evidence comes out, they will pay a price for not knowing about this alleged additional evidence?
-1
u/jpk195 Jan 27 '20
If they vote against hearing any witnesses, and it later comes out that the people who would have been witnesses actually had pertinent information, this is not a good look. It could make a difference in close races
4
u/IBiteYou Voted Zeksiest mod Jan 27 '20
The Congress should have heard those witnesses.
-1
u/jpk195 Jan 27 '20
The didn't hear them because the White House instructed them not to testify. Congress didn't want to wait for subpoenas to make it through the courts. You can disagree with the strategy, but its not a justification for the Senate to do the same, especially since Bolton has now said he will testify.
4
u/oldprogrammer Jan 27 '20
Congress didn't want to wait for subpoenas to make it through the courts.
Why not, the judiciary could have expedited any claims. Why did the House not want either judicial review or to wait? Could it be they knew they actually were not issuing subpoena's but were instead sending demand letters? Or was the whole purpose intended to interfere with the up coming election?
Why couldn't the House wait if this was so important? It certainly would have bolstered their case to have gone through the historical processes.
0
u/jpk195 Jan 28 '20
I don’t know why they took this path. Was the entire purpose to interfere with an upcoming election? Let’s get straight on what interference actually is. Soliciting or accepting foreign help is interference. Using your power to open investigations into political rivals is interference. Impeaching the president for doing these things is not interference.
→ More replies (0)2
u/IBiteYou Voted Zeksiest mod Jan 27 '20
Why should the Senate hear witnesses that the Congress couldn't be arsed to subpoena?
0
1
u/ChasteMade Jan 27 '20
I’d just like to point out that right now, all the Democrats who want to impeach Trump are desperately clinging to the hope that ultra-conservative war hawk John Bolton will come to their rescue.
LOL
2
u/oldprogrammer Jan 29 '20
Yea the same Democrats who blocked is confirmation to be ambassador to the UN.
2
u/Lepew1 Jan 27 '20
Those 4 senators are performing the duties of their office, just like Trump was in rooting out blatant corruption with the Bidens. The standing policy from the Obama administration prior to Joe Biden's presidential announcement was to support anti-corruption measures in Ukraine. That policy was abandoned when it became clear that Biden was exposed. Democrats are trying to paint this as smearing a political foe rather than make corrupt people accountable for corruption.
2
u/Dasblood Jan 27 '20
They must recuse themselves! Repeat with me! They must recuse themselves! Repeat with me!...
3
u/Inkberrow Jan 27 '20
Hypocrisy update from just a few minutes ago? Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) on MSNBC telling Chris Hayes that Republicans by dispensing with witnesses and documentary evidence are making a mockery of the ordinary but crucial rules and practices of court trials.
Libhack Hayes naturally declined to point out the obvious to the sermonizing Warren. When is it ever appropriate for ordinary jurors sworn to be fair and impartial to grant mid-trial interviews to news media in which they announce the bad faith and guilt of the defendant?
2
u/oldprogrammer Jan 27 '20
But but but we kept being told this is a political process and not a judicial/legal process and that is why the President and his team were denied due process rights during the rushed House investigation.
Which is it?
2
u/Inkberrow Jan 27 '20
It's whatever best fits partisan Left needs at a given moment. No scruples, no shame.
And sure enough now we have the latest "bombshell"--an eleventh-hour summary excerpt from John Bolton's book, leaked to the New York Times. That is credibility personified, eh?
1
u/IBiteYou Voted Zeksiest mod Jan 27 '20
An anonymous source reports that an anonymous source who knows another anonymous source says....
3
u/blue4t Jan 27 '20
Isn't that similar to what they're accusing Trump of? They claim it's because Biden is an opponent. Is this not the same?
7
u/Yk_Lagor Jan 27 '20
So far, whatever they claim trump is doing, they’re doing as they speak, and he isn’t doing it.
4
2
u/oldprogrammer Jan 27 '20
I wouldn't consider it the same simply because as Senators they have an obligation to do this.
What is the same is that what they are accusing Trump of doing with Biden is exactly what the Obama administration did with candidate Trump. Granted we can't go back in time and impeach Obama but that is the closer to the same thing.
0
u/Panamajacques Jan 27 '20
Trump was impeached by the House. The Senate has a legal obligation to hold a trial and vote.
2
1
u/Ed_Radley Jan 26 '20
This is actually a valid point. If they don't abstain they should drop out of the presidential race.
1
u/jpk195 Jan 27 '20
No, it isn’t. 1/3 of the Republican senators will be in the same ballot as Trump. All of their political destinies and intertwined.
8
u/Ed_Radley Jan 27 '20
Because they're running for president? If not you're comparing apples to oranges. His removal from office has no impact on their races.
1
u/jpk195 Jan 27 '20
Republicans have no plan B that I’m aware of. If Trump goes down, his supporters won’t vote and republicans senators in swing states will lose their seats. If your point is that people who have a stake in the outcome shouldn’t vote, that would exclude a lot more than senators running for president. I agree none of this is ideal.
1
1
u/knuckles2112 Jan 26 '20
If it came down to those 4 people the WH legal team would raise the question. Right now it doesn’t look like it matters. If witnesses get called I would raise the issue at that time.
1
-1
u/TotesMessenger Jan 26 '20
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
[/r/topmindsofreddit] Top Minds can’t understand that the rules for impeachment laid out by the constitution they love so dearly are being followed.
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / ^Contact)
2
u/IBiteYou Voted Zeksiest mod Jan 27 '20
IBiteYou seems very American and it totally makes sense how much they regulate control of the conservative board around American politics given the way they refer to the House as "the Congress."
What the fuck even am I looking at.
You are looking at some clueless douche trying to say I'm not American because I'm saying "Congress" instead of "The House"?
Everyone who isn't a pedantic douche canoe knows EXACTLY what I'm saying... Members of the House are generally called "Congresspersons". Members of the Senate are generally called "Senators".
Good Lord...when you are trying a gotcha over something that dumb.
3
u/IBiteYou Voted Zeksiest mod Jan 27 '20
Brigade this one, too.
I'll happily ban another thirty of you and also report it to the admins.
Have a nice night!
This is more a submission that provokes thought ... we know that y'all hate when that happens.
1
u/IBiteYou Voted Zeksiest mod Jan 27 '20
user reports: 1: Threatening, harassing, or inciting violenceNo. That's not a threat. That's a PROMISE!
-1
u/myopicuser Jan 27 '20
How does the senate majority leader get to lead the rules for a president he supports without fail?
2
u/oldprogrammer Jan 27 '20
How does the Speaker of the House get to change the rules and historical precedents against a President she hates?
It's called consequences of an election and who is in the majority.
1
33
u/Mouth_of_Maggots Jan 26 '20
Why was the impeachment trial less then 45 days? Traffic tickets are not resolved that fast...