Articles of Impeachment Scorecard

[RetroTin88]

Question...do you pro Trump guys truly believe he has not crossed the line on asking for a political favor from Ukraine and not obstructed investigations into him? Or are you against impeachment for some other reason.

You say favor, others say Trump was making sure that the Ukraine isn't allowing corruption on the US's dime.

You say obstructing justice, other say defending himself against biased and unlawful prosecution.

How do you answer questions that both sides see as dissentious when phrased by their rival party?

 

[jomar]

How do you answer questions that both sides see as dissentious when phrased by their rival party?

Fair enough. See below.

You say favor, others say Trump was making sure that the Ukraine isn't allowing corruption on the US's dime.

Things taken in context. If Trump was truly concerned about corruption why did he fire the ambassador who was actually pushing against corruption? I’ve heard nothing to substantiate his losing faith in her, or whatever.

Do you believe trump held up funds out of concern for Ukrainian corruption?

If you’ve actually read up on Trump you’d probably come to the conclusion that Trump doesn’t give a shit about corruption, unless it’s not in his favor, that is.

You say obstructing justice, other say defending himself against biased and unlawful prosecution.

Politics is/can be biased, but that doesn’t make any prosecution illegal. If he has nothing to hide why is he blocking people from testifying in the senate impeachment hearings? They could clear him, right?

He told McGhan to fire Muellor multiple times, and a slew of attorneys weighed in on how that was actual obstruction of justice.

 

[jp55665566]

ScoreCard

Democrats - 0

 

[RetroTin88]

Fair enough. See below.



Things taken in context. If Trump was truly concerned about corruption why did he fire the ambassador who was actually pushing against corruption? I’ve heard nothing to substantiate his losing faith in her, or whatever.

Do you believe trump held up funds out of concern for Ukrainian corruption?

If you’ve actually read up on Trump you’d probably come to the conclusion that Trump doesn’t give a shit about corruption, unless it’s not in his favor, that is.



Politics is/can be biased, but that doesn’t make any prosecution illegal. If he has nothing to hide why is he blocking people from testifying in the senate impeachment hearings? They could clear him, right?

He told McGhan to fire Muellor multiple times, and a slew of attorneys weighed in on how that was actual obstruction of justice.

You're only providing the Democratic Party's viewpoints. The answer to your question is the Republicans' defense.

Trump's defense is against unlawful prosecution against a corrupt Democratic Party unable to handle his victory.

Your question can't be asked or answered without biased from either side.

 

[jomar]

You're only providing the Democratic Party's viewpoints. The answer to your question is the Republicans' defense.

Trump's defense is against unlawful prosecution against a corrupt Democratic Party unable to handle his victory.

Your question can't be asked or answered without biased from either side.

Pretend you’re an independent taking a college course.

The questions are valid and they are many for both sides. And they can certainly be asked and answered through an unbiased lens, though perhaps not from US citizens on this board.

 

[RetroTin88]

Pretend you’re an independent taking a college course.

The questions are valid and they are many for both sides. And they can certainly be asked and answered through an unbiased lens, though perhaps not from US citizens on this board.

I would say that the Democrats have a history of trying to circumvent the constitution and their obsession with Trump does not endear me to their cause nor their accusations, while Trump would be wise to take on a constitutional lawyer as a top aid (that he will listen to) to help him better understand the powers of the President.

Do I think both sides are using their own interpretation of the Constitution to their advantage? Yep. Do I think Trump violated the Constitution? Nope. Do I think he is capable of it? Yep. Do I think he will after this farce is settled? Probably. (Trump doesn't strike me as the kind of person who will learn from his near-misses, but will only grow bolder, which could lead to a justified impeachment and removal from office during his second term.)

 

[Cvh0601]

No more than believing that VP Biden demanded the removal of Viktor Shokin as Ukraine's prosecutor-general in March 2016. The larger question is in believing which news source is accurate in its reporting. When "Baksheesh" becomes the norm for dealing with Oligarchs and Government officials, shouldn't a president wonder how his foreign aid was spent?

https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/joe-biden-ukraine/

 

[Liar]

GOP sycophants?
Trump cult?

Yeah, there's no partisan bias here.

If you reverse the sentiment of what you said, you'll be describing the Dumz attempt to remove Trump to a T. (Justice be damned, they just want Trump out.)

Yeah, but in both cases you have observable facts to hold it up against.

If justice be damned, they just want him out, why did they wait this long? Was it really the first opportunity they had to trump (heh) up charges against him?

 

[Conager]

Yeah, but in both cases you have observable facts to hold it up against.

If justice be damned, they just want him out, why did they wait this long? Was it really the first opportunity they had to trump (heh) up charges against him?

Literally the first opportunity, after the first attempt failed.

The Russia, Russia, Russia collusion narrative was entirely trumped up. Made up out of whole cloth. There was no "there" there, but that did not matter. The plan was to have Trump drag his heels and claim obstruction when there was no underlying crime. Mueller killed that effort by making it clear this was entirely Weissman and his team of angry Democrats be ause Mueller obviously did not know what was going on in his own investigation.

The Ukraine call was THE NEXT DAY after Mueller testified and gave such poor optics.

This effort pleases the Dems base but hurts them with independents. This time they were going for ague innuendo and hoped Trump would refuse to disclose the contents of the call. Which he absolutely has the right to do he didn't and this cratered worse than Mueller.

 

[Liar]

If there was no there there with Russia, and there is no there there with Ukraine, and they just made up impeachable offenses, why didn't they do that w Russia already? Cause there sure was plenty there to plausibly spin that way.

Is there more there there here?

Fuck, I sound like Dr Seuss now.

 

[Conager]

If there was no there there with Russia, and there is no there there with Ukraine, and they just made up impeachable offenses, why didn't they do that w Russia already? Cause there sure was plenty there to plausibly spin that way.

Is there more there there here?

Fuck, I sound like Dr Seuss now.

They planned to, but Mueller's performance was going to make great campaign ads. They could not get Pelosi on board.

You are correct. The was more to the Russia thing because they drug it on forever pissing of Trump and making him threaten things that he had every legal right to do, but made bad optics. Firing Mueller would have hurt. On the other hand, Trump repeatedly waived executive privilege which he did not have to do. Tge assumed they could parade Whitehouse personnel befor the new, improved Schiff-led kangaroo court and Trump dug in his heels. Which he is allowed to fo. His tax records release is before SCOTUS. They didn't even petition the courts at all to compel testimony. If you can't compel documents you sure as hell can't compel testimony.

The article of impeachment alleging obstruction is absolute bulshit. They dont have a leg to stand on. They cannot unilaterally demand subpoena compliance and not get the backing of the Judiciary branch of government. SCOTUS just now acknowledged that the tax return disclosure is arguable before them. Testimony that pierces executive privilege is as well. You would think Nadler's Judiciary committee would know that.

Petter Strozyk taking his device home and leaving it for his wife to find was the beginning of the end. Not just the messages of actual conspiracy to get Trump but the fact that Strozyk was key on both the let's give Hillary a pass and let's Trump up charges on Trump. The contrast between the two made this appear to be the partisan hit job that it actually was.

 

[bellisarius]

Another interesting twist I haven't yet heard/read anyone, anywhere cover pertains to Democrats now calling for Republican McConnell to recuse himself from any participation in the possible Senate trial because of his "total coordination" comments with the White House about how the Republicans will shape the trial (Republicans being the constitutional majority in the Senate as are the Democrats in the House, who totally shape impeachment proceedings); they claim he cannot possibly be an unpartisan, unbiased participant.

I agree.

But, Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi is, likewise, the driver of the totally partisan push in the House to impeach the President, ordering when the process began, why it began, and the articles of impeachment themselves. To even suggest that she isn't as partisan and bias as McConnell is nothing but laughable. But did anyone insisting McConnell recuse himself also call for just as partisan and biased Pelosi to recuse herself at the beginning of this mess? No, of course not. That's called hypocrisy.

Plus, Pelosi has much more to gain if Trump is impeached: Pence becomes President and she's next in line. If something then happens to Pence, Pelosi then becomes President. Just. like. that.

So, she's also got unique partisan political ambition that only adds to her natural political Party partisanship in hopes of seeing Trump gone.

All impeachments are political. Some are based more on fact than others.

Johnson's impeachment was purely political. Nixon would have been impeached had he not resigned. Clinton's was based on fact, but decided not serious enough to overturn an election.

Back to impeachment being political. This impeachment, should the House hand down articles (probable but not a sure thing) is purely political. As such the presidents party is going to play defense. More than that, expect them to immediately go on the offense. As a matter of conjecture I expect the trial to kill any aspiration that Biden has for high office. As we both agree that the "obstruction of congress" is a bull shit charge then all that remains is to show that there was "probable cause" for Biden to be investigated and any decision re. guilt aside, there is ample evidence that Biden SHOULD be investigated.

As you like to refer to the Constitution, let's point out that it is the president that is in charge of foreign policy. Not the ambassador's, not the congress, not the press, only the president. All can confide, but only one decides. The Constitution doesn't allow for a cabal of detractors to decide foreign policy. In that particular arena we are NOt a republic, let alone a democracy.

Further, the one mistake you make is to equate this to a court room trial. It's not and any presumption of impartiality should be cast aside. Without any overwhelming evidence of wrong doing (ala Nixon) the result is going to be pretty much partisan.

 

[bigsly]

As you like to refer to the Constitution, let's point out that it is the president that is in charge of foreign policy. Not the ambassador's, not the congress, not the press, only the president. All can confide, but only one decides. The Constitution doesn't allow for a cabal of detractors to decide foreign policy. In that particular arena we are NOt a republic, let alone a democracy.

That's generally true, as I've succinctly pointed-out before, but the Constitution also mandates a very significant role for the Senate in foreign policy, specifically for advising and consenting (or not) to every Treaty by a two-thirds majority. The Senate and House also constitutionally control the purse strings which foreign policy relies on for implementation.

Further, the one mistake you make is to equate this to a court room trial. It's not and any presumption of impartiality should be cast aside.

It is absolutely no mistake to compare impeachment (indictment) and removal (conviction) to a court room trial. And I can point to plenty of court room trials that've displayed the furthest thing from "impartiality".

I've also addressed your "impartiality" issue before by proving by roll call vote mathematics that this impeachment proceeding, so far, is unarguably the most partisan in American history.

The House is pretty sure to indict Trump on the Articles of Impeachment he's now been charged with, and it's probably even more sure that the Senate can't produce the 67 votes to convict Trump of those same Articles.

When that happens, all the anti-Trumpers will still consider Trump guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, even though he constitutionally isn't. Thus, it's not this "court room trial" (the constitutional process of impeachment and removal) that's partisan, it's simply - as always - just individuals who are most certainly, and pathetically, partisan.

Without any overwhelming evidence of wrong doing (ala Nixon) the result is going to be pretty much partisan.

And I again point out: so far, this impeachment process has been entirely partisan - the roll call votes prove that. Until the actual full House roll call votes on each Article of Impeachment is rendered, no one can say factually how partisan it will be compared to history's other vote tallies on articles of impeachment.

 

[SpeareChucker]

It appears that the partisan political tactics of the
hard Left base of the Democrats has possibly
led to a defection in their ranks...

 

[icanhelp1]

That's generally true, as I've succinctly pointed-out before, but the Constitution also mandates a very significant role for the Senate in foreign policy, specifically for advising and consenting (or not) to every Treaty by a two-thirds majority. The Senate and House also constitutionally control the purse strings which foreign policy relies on for implementation.



It is absolutely no mistake to compare impeachment (indictment) and removal (conviction) to a court room trial. And I can point to plenty of court room trials that've displayed the furthest thing from "impartiality".

I've also addressed your "impartiality" issue before by proving by roll call vote mathematics that this impeachment proceeding, so far, is unarguably the most partisan in American history.

The House is pretty sure to indict Trump on the Articles of Impeachment he's now been charged with, and it's probably even more sure that the Senate can't produce the 67 votes to convict Trump of those same Articles.

When that happens, all the anti-Trumpers will still consider Trump guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, even though he constitutionally isn't. Thus, it's not this "court room trial" (the constitutional process of impeachment and removal) that's partisan, it's simply - as always - just individuals who are most certainly, and pathetically, partisan.



And I again point out: so far, this impeachment process has been entirely partisan - the roll call votes prove that. Until the actual full House roll call votes on each Article of Impeachment is rendered, no one can say factually how partisan it will be compared to history's other vote tallies on articles of impeachment.

Just what our forefathers wanted to avoid, weaponization of the impeachment process. Party majority power over due process. I wonder if there are any genuine lawyers on the dem side of the judiciary committee. Is their blind hatred for Trump stronger than upholding their constitutional responsibilities they swore an oath to do. Dershowitz proclaimed the whole impeachment proceeding ( articles of impeachment ) initiated by the judiciary committee is unconstitutional, Stated on "Life, Liberty & Levin" Sat 12/14/99

 

[bigsly]

The House Rules Committee today heard testimony (from other Representatives), conducted debate, and submitted motions and offered amendments to those motions regarding governance of tomorrow's debates and votes. The Rules Committee consists of 9 Democrats and 4 Republicans.

Being the majority, Committee Democrats submitted the motions which will govern tomorrow's debate and votes: 1 hour to debate the approved rules, followed by 6 hours of general debate on both articles, with no amendments permitted to be offered, and then the votes; and the rules enforced by Democrats.

Republicans offered 2 amendments to those motions, 1 asking to increase general debate time to 12 hours instead of 6. (With 434 Representatives presumably present tomorrow to vote (Elijah Cumming's seat still unfilled), 6 hours for debate means each Representative has 72 seconds to speak).

Both votes against the Republican amendments were totally partisan, 9-4. And so was the final vote to enact all motions as submitted.

Therefore, for the very first time in American impeachment history, all House Committee votes directly pertaining to the literal meat of impeachment proceedings have been totally partisan.

 

[bigsly]

Question for tomorrow:

Will either Representative Tulsi Gabbard or Representative Julian Castro, both actively seeking to gain the Office President Trump currently and constitutionally occupies, honorably recuse themselves from voting as their running for President positions are unarguably in direct conflict?

The Democrats don't need their supporting votes to easily impeach Trump, so why won't they do the undebatable non-partisan and honorable thing?

 

[bigsly]

The House has finally broken its total partisanship so far seen during this Impeachment proceeding. On a strictly procedural vote relating to the rules for the debate and votes on Impeachment today, "Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 755) impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors".

The vote: 229 - 197

AYES = 228 Democrats + 1 Independent (Justin Amash)

NOES = 2 Democrats + 195 Republicans

Not voting = 4 (2 Democrats, 2 Republicans)

The 6 hours of actual debate on both Articles of Impeachment has now begun; Democrats have 3 hours, Republicans have 3 hours. At the end of this debate, the full House will vote on each Article of Impeachment, with a simple majority of 218 votes needed to impeach on either Article.

Note: each Party has 3 hours to debate. There are currently 234 Democrats in the House and 1 Independent who will probably share in the Democrats' debate time. That means if all those 235 member spoke equally, they'd have 45 seconds each to speak. That dearth of debate time is solved by most members not being allowed to speak at all. Another great example of repugnant political Party hierarchy in action.

If allowed to speak equally, the 199 Republicans would each have 54 seconds to speak.

If you'd like to follow today's 3rd-in-American history event independently, you can watch it uncommercially and uninterrupted @ https://gov.mtopgroup.com/art1/live/house, follow on Twitter @HouseFloor, and see the exact House recording of YEAS and NOES on the Articles of Impeachment @ http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/index.asp.

Debate should end a little after 6pm EST, barring recess(es). I do not know if the just passed Rules allow a recess between the debate and the votes, but I wouldn't be surprised if one is planned to move the actual votes into prime time.

Edit to add:

1. Presidential hopeful challenger to President Trumped Julian Castro is recorded as voting with his Party on both procedural issues this morning. Interestingly, Presidential hopeful challenger to the President Tulsa Gabbard isn't shown as voting yet for either.

2. Updated the Roll Call vote above.

 

[bigsly]

Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America, has been impeached on both Articles charged against him by the United States House of Representatives of the 116th Congress. Trump becomes only the third President in the 230-year history of the United States to be impeached.

Roll Call votes for both Articles, by political Party:

Article I: Abuse of Power - H Res 755: On Agreeing To Article I Of The Resolution

YEAS: 230 (230 Democrats, 1 Independent, 0 Republicans)
NAYS: 197 (2 Democrats, 195 Republicans)
PRES: 1 (Democrat Tulsi Gabbard)
NV: 3

Article II: Obstruction of Congress - H Res 755: On Agreeing To Article II Of The Resolution
YEAS: 229( Democrats, 1 Independent, 0 Republicans)
NAYS: 198 (3 Democrats, 195 Republicans)
PRES: 1 (Democrat Tulsi Gabbard)
NV: 3

Impeachment thus concluded, the constitutional process now moves before the United States Senate for trial.

Note: vote totals subject to slight change.

 

[bigsly]

It's like fate's using the impeachment proceeding now concluded, and the Senate trial to come, as a giant mirror held up to America so it can undeniably see how unarguably corrupt statist government partisanly becomes, inevitably.

Alas, the vampirish partisans among us cannot even see themselves.

 

[trysail]

Does Elizabeth Warren Even Understand What Real Corruption Is?


"...You need to recognize that government spending of money and allocation of the resources of society is inherently corrupt. Government spending will always preferentially go to those who have curried the favor and greased the palms of the relevant government functionaries. There is no conceivable collection of anti-bribery laws, or campaign finance laws, that can improve this situation other than a little at the margins. The only significant improvement can come from shrinking the government and letting the private sector expand..."

-Francis Menton ("Manhattan Contrarian")
B.A., Yale College
J.D., Harvard University
Retired Partner, Wilkie, Farr & Gallagher LLP​

Source





​

 

[jp55665566]

Vote ALL Democrats OUT of Congress NOW !

 

[bigsly]

The House has finally broken its total partisanship so far seen during this Impeachment proceeding. On a strictly procedural vote relating to the rules for the debate and votes on Impeachment today, "Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 755) impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors".

The vote: 229 - 197

AYES = 228 Democrats + 1 Independent (Justin Amash)

NOES = 2 Democrats + 195 Republicans

Not voting = 4 (2 Democrats, 2 Republicans)

The 6 hours of actual debate on both Articles of Impeachment has now begun; Democrats have 3 hours, Republicans have 3 hours. At the end of this debate, the full House will vote on each Article of Impeachment, with a simple majority of 218 votes needed to impeach on either Article.

Note: each Party has 3 hours to debate. There are currently 234 Democrats in the House and 1 Independent who will probably share in the Democrats' debate time. That means if all those 235 member spoke equally, they'd have 45 seconds each to speak. That dearth of debate time is solved by most members not being allowed to speak at all. Another great example of repugnant political Party hierarchy in action.

If allowed to speak equally, the 199 Republicans would each have 54 seconds to speak.

If you'd like to follow today's 3rd-in-American history event independently, you can watch it uncommercially and uninterrupted @ https://gov.mtopgroup.com/art1/live/house, follow on Twitter @HouseFloor, and see the exact House recording of YEAS and NOES on the Articles of Impeachment @ http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/index.asp.

Debate should end a little after 6pm EST, barring recess(es). I do not know if the just passed Rules allow a recess between the debate and the votes, but I wouldn't be surprised if one is planned to move the actual votes into prime time.

Edit to add:

1. Presidential hopeful challenger to President Trumped Julian Castro is recorded as voting with his Party on both procedural issues this morning. Interestingly, Presidential hopeful challenger to the President Tulsa Gabbard isn't shown as voting yet for either.

2. Updated the Roll Call vote above.

Question for tomorrow:

Will either Representative Tulsi Gabbard or Representative Julian Castro, both actively seeking to gain the Office President Trump currently and constitutionally occupies, honorably recuse themselves from voting as their running for President positions are unarguably in direct conflict?

The Democrats don't need their supporting votes to easily impeach Trump, so why won't they do the undebatable non-partisan and honorable thing?

Presidential hopeful Castro voted YEA for both Articles of Impeachment.

Presidential hopeful Gabbard voted PRESENT for both Articles, the only Representative to do so.

 

[about_average]

You say favor, others say Trump was making sure that the Ukraine isn't allowing corruption on the US's dime.

-- "Hi, I'm ready to buy some more eggs from you, we really need them"

-- "Sure, but I'd like you to do us a favor though, because our family has really helped you a lot. We really need some of your hay for our goats. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."

Sure sounds like eggs in exchange for hay.

But please, tell us where the corruption is with a California based company (Crowdstrike) founded by two Americans doing cybersecurity in the US.

Also please tell us where the corruption is with a person carrying out official US foreign policy sanctioned by the administration and congress, other western countries, the IMF and Ukrainian anti-corruption organizations.

You know, the "corruption" that Trump knew about for over a year but suddenly became concerned about only after Biden announced his bid and was leading him in polls.

 

[about_average]

Presidential hopeful Castro voted YEA for both Articles of Impeachment.

Presidential hopeful Gabbard voted PRESENT for both Articles, the only Representative to do so.

Yup, I used to admire her, but no longer, if she doesn't think a president who commits a crime and who endangers US national security shouldn't be impeached.