Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

[NWRMidnight]

Call it what it is. A sham trial.
Seems the founding fathers made a mistake when it comes to how impeachment should actually proceed.
Seems they made a lot of mistakes actually.

Did our found father's make mistakes, or is the corruption that has manipulated and/or changed the interpretation of the constitution either directly or by those that have been appointed to interpret it meaning? The Very people who are supposed to uphold the Constitution, are the same corrupt ones that have just manipulated and changed it's meaning. These corrupt people are also the same ones who appoint and vote in the SCOTUS, who has the final decision in how the constitution is interpreted, and what is considered constitutional or unconstitutional. How could they ever in vision this level of corruption?

It's not the Founding Father's, or the Constitution's fault that our government doesn't have what it takes to be honest, stand up for the truth, and for what is right. If anyone is to blame, it is those that have continued to allow the corruption to continue over the many years, which is us the voters.

 

[Grooveriding]

This would worry me, because now that it's clear the Republican party has morphed into a party of blatant illegality and corruption, the next election is going to be corrupted throughout.

Trump will probably wake up first thing tomorrow and start soliciting help wherever he can, now that he knows he can run criminally wild with no repercussions. If he still loses the election, he will pull every scam in the book to try and nullify the election results, knowing he'll have the backing of his party, and his radicalized base.

Beating him in the election will only be step #1. The two months between his loss and the inauguration will be the real test. He'll open with conspiracy theories on how it was rigged, go to litigation, when/if that fails, he'll move on to some serious madness.

Trump is facing prison, I don't see how he won't try everything he can to keep power even after losing the election. His base will be fully on board. Those fanatics at his klan rallies will be on board with bells on. The Qanon loons will probably wind up getting themselves imprisoned/shot.

 

[Victorian Gray]

No idea why so many people seem surprised at the results, it was a slam dunk before it ever began. Unless the Democrats could come up with actual high crimes and misdemeanors and get some kind of bipartisan support it was never going to happen.

It's ok. You still have the president that you deserve.

 

[cytg111]

Not my wettest dream, and he'll just be our President for about another 5 years.

No he wont. Well maybe he will but then it will be Junior or something like that. Its not like we havent tried to warn you but it was more important to own the libtards than to preserve you own freedom. Enjoy your Putinism.

 

[pcgeek11]

Rand Paul is hell bent on outting the whistleblower! He needs to be arrested or silenced!!

Arrested for what?

Just so you know it isn't against the law to say his name in public or anywhere else.

 

[pcgeek11]

He revealeed the name of the whistlebower on his twitter account in violation of federal law protecting whistleblowers. Basically he put a bullseye on the same targeting him/her for extermination with extreme prejudice.

This has been discussed to death. It is Not illegal to reveal the whistleblower's name.

That is a myth. I'm not saying if it should or not, but it isn't illegal to do so.

Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

U.S. President Donald Trump and some Republican lawmakers are pushing for political and media allies to reveal the name of the whistleblower who prompted an impeachment inquiry.

www.reuters.com

and

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/7764...ower-experts-say-it-would-not-violate-any-law

"There is no overarching protection for the identity of the whistleblower under federal law," said Dan Meyer, a lawyer and the former executive director of the intelligence community whistleblower program. "Congress has never provided that protection."

Whistleblower law "provides no protection"
There is a patchwork of whistleblower protections under federal law. The specific framework that applies to the whistleblower who filed a complaint against Trump is outlined in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.
The law bans retaliation against an employee for blowing the whistle on perceived wrongdoing. It requires the inspector general to keep the lid on the whistleblower's name, but it does not stop a member of Congress, a president or anyone else from identifying a whistleblower.

 

[TheVrolok]

lol, some of you thought Bolton would be a game changer. How could one possibly think there would be any decency, morality, conscience, or dignity from the Republicans? Fool me once.. Fool me twice.. Fool my the thousandth time...

The party has proven who they are. Don't forget it. Vote against them at every turn. Not that I think it'll matter.

Unfortunately, I think we're so far off the corruption deep end at this point none of it really matters. Look forward to Republican minority rule for the foreseeable future.

 

[ch33zw1z]

This has been discussed to death. It is Not illegal to reveal the whistleblower's name.

That is a myth. I'm not saying if it should or not, but it isn't illegal to do so.

Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

U.S. President Donald Trump and some Republican lawmakers are pushing for political and media allies to reveal the name of the whistleblower who prompted an impeachment inquiry.

www.reuters.com

and

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/7764...ower-experts-say-it-would-not-violate-any-law

"There is no overarching protection for the identity of the whistleblower under federal law," said Dan Meyer, a lawyer and the former executive director of the intelligence community whistleblower program. "Congress has never provided that protection."

Whistleblower law "provides no protection"
There is a patchwork of whistleblower protections under federal law. The specific framework that applies to the whistleblower who filed a complaint against Trump is outlined in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.
The law bans retaliation against an employee for blowing the whistle on perceived wrongdoing. It requires the inspector general to keep the lid on the whistleblower's name, but it does not stop a member of Congress, a president or anyone else from identifying a whistleblower.

Even if it did violate a law, R's wouldn't do anything about it.

 

[cytg111]

Arrested for what?

Just so you know it isn't against the law to say his name in public or anywhere else.

150 pages in and this is what..... arh forget it stupid prizes and all

 

[ch33zw1z]

150 pages in and this is what..... arh forget it stupid prizes and all

He's just happy for a win once in a while

 

[interchange]

This has been discussed to death. It is Not illegal to reveal the whistleblower's name.

That is a myth. I'm not saying if it should or not, but it isn't illegal to do so.

Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

U.S. President Donald Trump and some Republican lawmakers are pushing for political and media allies to reveal the name of the whistleblower who prompted an impeachment inquiry.

www.reuters.com

and

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/7764...ower-experts-say-it-would-not-violate-any-law

"There is no overarching protection for the identity of the whistleblower under federal law," said Dan Meyer, a lawyer and the former executive director of the intelligence community whistleblower program. "Congress has never provided that protection."

Whistleblower law "provides no protection"
There is a patchwork of whistleblower protections under federal law. The specific framework that applies to the whistleblower who filed a complaint against Trump is outlined in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.
The law bans retaliation against an employee for blowing the whistle on perceived wrongdoing. It requires the inspector general to keep the lid on the whistleblower's name, but it does not stop a member of Congress, a president or anyone else from identifying a whistleblower.

While the law provides no penalty for exposing the whistleblower, it's obvious purpose is to provide a mechanism for which a person brings credible and urgent evidence of wrongdoing forward and remains anonymous so that they be shielded from repercussion. What Rand Paul did was clearly wrong and clearly directly counter to the intent of the law, but that does not make his actions illegal. He should be condemned and e.g. censured by the Senate for it.

Now... There is another part to this. The whistleblower is known to be under protection due to threats to his life. If he does suffer harm, I do believe Rand could face civil and criminal liability for it, however that would require at a minimum showing that it was Rand Paul's action which exposed the whistleblower to harm. Since his name had already allegedly been exposed, this seems a very unlikely scenario.

 

[interchange]

Wow, Lamar Alexander’s statement is quite damning of Trump: “There is no need for additional evidence because we all know Trump did it. House managers have proven their case beyond any doubt.”

But...also... “the Senate should not remove from office in an election year and ban him from the ballot over something inappropriate”.

You know... I could almost entertain that argument except it is absolutely obvious that the misdeed was intended to influence the election itself. And add to that Trump's total lack of remorse. There is nothing to indicate he won't do it again or isn't already doing it again or worse. Know what happens when criminals who show lack of remorse for their crimes are able to escape any consequence for them? They get more brazen.

 

[cytg111]

He's just happy for a win once in a while

Homo Screwed Up if your win is King Donald. There is a stupid prize if I ever saw one. Guess it makes sense.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Homo Screwed Up if your win is King Donald. There is a stupid prize if I ever saw one. Guess it makes sense.

Not in his perspective. Judicial activism is his winning, liberal tears is his winning, attacking people different from yourself is his winning. Later, conservatives will want liberals to believe that their concerns about behavior and law are sincere and justified, just cuz reasons, but their track record won't back them up.

 

[TheVrolok]

You know... I could almost entertain that argument except it is absolutely obvious that the misdeed was intended to influence the election itself. And add to that Trump's total lack of remorse. There is nothing to indicate he won't do it again or isn't already doing it again or worse. Know what happens when criminals who show lack of remorse for their crimes are able to escape any consequence for them? They get more brazen.

Even a step further, in Trump's case I believe the psychology is such that he really does perceive this as unjust persecution and subsequent vindication. He honestly believes he did nothing wrong, and perhaps even moreso that he was doing the right thing. As brazen as a criminal who realizes he got away with it may be, I suspect Trump will be reinforced to a larger degree because his twisted worldview is simply being confirmed.

 

[fskimospy]

You know... I could almost entertain that argument except it is absolutely obvious that the misdeed was intended to influence the election itself. And add to that Trump's total lack of remorse. There is nothing to indicate he won't do it again or isn't already doing it again or worse. Know what happens when criminals who show lack of remorse for their crimes are able to escape any consequence for them? They get more brazen.

This argument is in many ways worse because it says using your powers of office to rig your own re-election is not impeachable.

As I mentioned before by this same logic diverting federal funds to run ads for your campaign would also not be impeachable. Ordering the FBI to open investigations into your opponents isn’t impeachable. Telling Israel that no more US aid is coming until they declare your opponent an anti-Semite isn’t impeachable. This is not lost on Trump either, I suspect you will see his corruption kick into overdrive now.

No matter what happens in November a door has now been opened that we basically can’t close. The president is now able to use the office to advance their own personal interests instead of those of the country. This will end badly.

 

[IronWing]

If Roberts doesn't want his name forever attached to a sham trial that basically gives the POTUS dictator powers, maybe he should call some witnesses.

Embellishing presidential power was the purpose for which Roberts was elevated to the Court. Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch somewhat, and Kavanaugh were nominated based primarily on their extreme authoritarian views of presidential powers. This impeachment proceeding has been a gift to Roberts.

 

[TheVrolok]

This argument is in many ways worse because it says using your powers of office to rig your own re-election is not impeachable.

As I mentioned before by this same logic diverting federal funds to run ads for your campaign would also not be impeachable. Ordering the FBI to open investigations into your opponents isn’t impeachable. Telling Israel that no more US aid is coming until they declare your opponent an anti-Semite isn’t impeachable. This is not lost on Trump either, I suspect you will see his corruption kick into overdrive now.

No matter what happens in November a door has now been opened that we basically can’t close. The president is now able to use the office to advance their own personal interests instead of those of the country. This will end badly.

To be fair, that's as long as his/her party controls the congress because checks and balances would theoretically work if the legislative branch wasn't corrupted. Additionally, it may be GOP specific as it seems the Dems are far more willing to eat their own.

That said, in 10, 20, 30 years? Who knows.

I do think we're well on our way to minority (general population) rule by the GOP for the foreseeable future (because they can maintain at least the white house and senate under this system).

I would love to be surprised by the American electorate, and it would be the happiest I could be about being wrong, but I suspect I won't be.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The law bans retaliation against an employee for blowing the whistle on perceived wrongdoing.

Outing the person in public could easily be proven to be retaliation, especially given the nature of extreme partisanship nowadays. Any layman would be able to determine that an outed whistleblower at this point in time would have a legitimate threat to their life and/or well-being.

Half the laymen would want to be the ones to be the threat.

 

[fskimospy]

To be fair, that's as long as his/her party controls the congress because checks and balances would theoretically work if the legislative branch wasn't corrupted. Additionally, it may be GOP specific as it seems the Dems are far more willing to eat their own.

That said, in 10, 20, 30 years? Who knows.

I do think we're well on our way to minority (general population) rule by the GOP for the foreseeable future (because they can maintain at least the white house and senate under this system).

I would love to be surprised by the American electorate, and it would be the happiest I could be about being wrong, but I suspect I won't be.

While I hear what you’re saying I’m not so sure as even if the Democrats had control of the senate the outcome would have been the same. The opposition party doesn’t just need to control congress, they need to muster 67 votes, which in this day and age is nearly impossible. It’s not like we were one or two votes away from removal, we were 17. It wasn’t even close.

I agree that this is possibly more GOP specific but even if that’s the case future Democratic presidents have room for a lot of corruption and crime. A looooot.

 

[TheVrolok]

While I hear what you’re saying I’m not so sure as even if the Democrats had control of the senate the outcome would have been the same. The opposition party doesn’t just need to control congress, they need to muster 67 votes, which in this day and age is nearly impossible. It’s not like we were one or two votes away from removal, we were 17. It wasn’t even close.

I agree that this is possibly more GOP specific but even if that’s the case future Democratic presidents have room for a lot of corruption and crime. A looooot.

You're right, control isn't enough you need the 67 vote majority.

It's really sad, honestly. The founders didn't envision this level of corruption.. Or, perhaps, they hoped we'd adjust our founding document to fit the times.

 

[Bird222]

You're right, control isn't enough you need the 67 vote majority.

It's really sad, honestly. The founders didn't envision this level of corruption.. Or, perhaps, they hoped we'd adjust our founding document to fit the times.

I think Jefferson did.

 

[cytg111]

Not in his perspective. Judicial activism is his winning, liberal tears is his winning, attacking people different from yourself is his winning. Later, conservatives will want liberals to believe that their concerns about behavior and law are sincere and justified, just cuz reasons, but their track record won't back them up.

I think these urban folk shoul look to urban Russia to get an idea about what they wish for...

 

[Vic]

This argument is in many ways worse because it says using your powers of office to rig your own re-election is not impeachable.

As I mentioned before by this same logic diverting federal funds to run ads for your campaign would also not be impeachable. Ordering the FBI to open investigations into your opponents isn’t impeachable. Telling Israel that no more US aid is coming until they declare your opponent an anti-Semite isn’t impeachable. This is not lost on Trump either, I suspect you will see his corruption kick into overdrive now.

No matter what happens in November a door has now been opened that we basically can’t close. The president is now able to use the office to advance their own personal interests instead of those of the country. This will end badly.

What has stopped past administrations and past Congresses from giving this kind of power to Presidents has been the certain knowledge that their opposition would also have this power when they got elected into office. So that the Republicans have done this means that either 1) they are shortsighted and stupid, or 2) they believe they can now remain in power forever.
I'm going with #2.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What has stopped past administrations and past Congresses from giving this kind of power to Presidents has been the certain knowledge that their opposition would also have this power when they got elected into office. So that the Republicans have done this means that either 1) they are shortsighted and stupid, or 2) they believe they can now remain in power forever.
I'm going with #2.

Or they know their on their heels and feel they'd rather sell next year's profits to halt this year's losses, so to speak.