So much for Impeachment..

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

It does beg the question, whether or not Trump can deploy the military to protect his private property.

I say no, but his two lady friends Mitch and Lindsey might have other ideas.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, what is the proper procedure to complete the impeachment process? Seems few here agree on just what that is. As I understand it, the house has written up the articles of impeachment and voted to pass impeachment. The POTUS has now been impeached in the House. That part has been done. The House must now forward the passed articles to the Senate and per the rules, the Senate must now conduct the trial. It is up to the Senate to either affirm the impeachment, finding guilty and remove the POTUS, or acquit. Those are the only two options on the table.

It seems to me that failing to forward the articles to the Senate for trial is in and of itself an obstruction. A month ago there was all this urgency to impeach. What happened to the urgency? Yeah, Nancy is groveling for a commitment to a fair trial. What defines a fair trial? I get a sense that anything that does not result in conviction and removal is going to be considered an unfair trial by the Republican controlled Senate. This is a classic case trying to overreach her capacity, or having your cake and eat it too, on her part. Pelosi and the House have done their part; they do not get to control the entire process. This does not get to be left in limbo and the American people left twisting in the wind indefinitely. The GOP Senators are very correct, IMO, to expect a timeline and if it is not "reasonable", would feel like they will have no other choice than to pass a resolution to dismiss.

The Dems want this done. Shit or get off the pot. If they don't it just means this was all political bluster, with no teeth.

So dishonest. Any trial that allows the defendant to withhold material witnesses from the prosecution isn't a fair trial. Is that too easy to comprehend? The House passed the writ on Dec 18, adjourned for the holiday break the next day & only returned for business yesterday. Moving forward at the speed of Congress, the writ will likely be delivered over the next few weeks. Nobody can deliver a writ when the Senate isn't in session to receive it.

 

[WelshBloke]

It does beg the question, whether or not Trump can deploy the military to protect his private property.

You know that if he does it in this instance he's not going to stop doing it.

 

[blackangst1]

Just American leaders or Iranians as well?

Any.

 

[WelshBloke]

Any.

Which leaves us in the position where its almost impossible to criticize Iran for calling for a political assassination when Trump has not only called for them but actually done them.

 

[blackangst1]

Which leaves us in the position where its almost impossible to criticize Iran for calling for a political assassination when Trump has not only called for them but actually done them.

Well, its more complex than that. And my opinion is irrelevant in this regard.

 

[Pohemi]

Which leaves us in the position where its almost impossible to criticize Iran for calling for a political assassination when Trump has not only called for them but actually done them.

I hear what you're saying, but that's playing right into #bothsides. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[WelshBloke]

I hear what you're saying, but that's playing right into #bothsides. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Really?

Is that how it went in WW2? Well the Nazis are bad but we cant take action as two wrongs dont make a right!

 

[WelshBloke]

Well, its more complex than that. And my opinion is irrelevant in this regard.

Is it more complex? Or is it difficult to hold "our" side to the same rules as we want the other side to adhere to?

 

[Pohemi]

Really?
Is that how it went in WW2? Well the Nazis are bad but we cant take action as two wrongs dont make a right!

Slightly different scenario in my opinion, but fwiw many of the officers WERE captured and brought to trial at Nuremberg. We didn't just immediately murder them in cold blood without justice in a court of (international) law, even though it was beyond doubt they were guilty.

Just like when they found Saddam hiding in that hole, they didn't just put one in his head. I guess Bin Laden was a bit more...aggressively sought being that he was not a Head-of-state or an official of any country.

 

[WelshBloke]

Slightly different scenario in my opinion, but fwiw many of the officers WERE captured and brought to trial at Nuremberg. We didn't just immediately murder them in cold blood without justice in a court of (international) law, even though it was beyond doubt they were guilty.

Of course it's a slightly different situation.
It's also a wildly different situation from a playground with toddlers in where the phrase "two wrongs dont make a right" is appropriate to use. It's not an appropriate phrase when dealing with geopolitical issues.

 

[WelshBloke]

There you go, you guys will see war before Trump let's himself get impeached.

US base in Iraq comes under rocket attack as Trump and Iran exchange threats

Missiles launched by Iran against US airbases in Iraq

Al-Asad and Erbil bases come under fire after Iranian official describes 13 ‘revenge scenarios’ following Suleimani assassination

www.theguardian.com

 

[Jhhnn]

Really?

Is that how it went in WW2? Well the Nazis are bad but we cant take action as two wrongs dont make a right!

Oh, please. The Nazis started WW2. Iran has done nothing like that. If a war breaks out, we will have started it. If you apply any scrutiny at all, you'll see the Trump admin applying the same propaganda techniques on the American public that the Nazis used on their own at the time. They claimed Poland started the war, and were believed.

 

[Pohemi]

Of course it's a slightly different situation.
It's also a wildly different situation from a playground with toddlers in where the phrase "two wrongs dont make a right" is appropriate to use. It's not an appropriate phrase when dealing with geopolitical issues.

Geopolitical or not, assassination has never been "okay", has it? I'm not stating that Trump was 'justified' in killing the Iranian general or not, but does having done so make it okay for Iran to say, "Well we're going to assassinate Trump now." ? Not in my opinion. Assassination is not the same as fighting between armed military factions. Maybe the only difference is my socially-engineered expectations.

 

[Jaskalas]

If you claim to stand against political assassination, you can no longer be a Republican. For Dear Leader did just that so he could start a war.

Something tells me the quibbling Republicans will endorse these assassinations before long. After all, Party before Country. Or Morals. Or US Lives.

 

[WelshBloke]

Geopolitical or not, assassination has never been "okay", has it? I'm not stating that Trump was 'justified' in killing the Iranian general or not, but does having done so make it okay for Iran to say, "Well we're going to assassinate Trump now." ? Not in my opinion. Assassination is not the same as fighting between armed military factions. Maybe the only difference is my socially-engineered expectations.

If Iran had assassinated Pompeo then publicly stated that that was their goal, then went one to assassinate a bunch of other members of the US administration do you think that there would be many arguments being made that the US shouldn't retaliate because "two wrongs dont make a right"?

 

[Pohemi]

If Iran had assassinated Pompeo then publicly stated that that was their goal, then went one to assassinate a bunch of other members of the US administration do you think that there would be many arguments being made that the US shouldn't retaliate because "two wrongs dont make a right"?

No. We'd be bombing the shit out of them within the hour most likely.

 

[WelshBloke]

No. We'd be bombing the shit out of them within the hour most likely.

So can we agree that the "two wrongs" argument gets left in the playground in the future?

 

[Pohemi]

So can we agree that the "two wrongs" argument gets left in the playground in the future?

You stated that Iran is justified for calling for assassinating Trump, because he assassinated their general. Am I understanding that right?
So...the next time US forces bomb another country for any reason, then it'll be justified if some citizen of that country bombs some random place in the US, possibly killing hundreds of people. Is that where we are at, now? Because same-same and all that?

 

[WelshBloke]

You stated that Iran is justified for calling for assassinating Trump, because he assassinated their general. Am I understanding that right?

No I said...

"Which leaves us in the position where its almost impossible to criticize Iran for calling for a political assassination when Trump has not only called for them but actually done them."

 

[Greenman]

Lets walk through this. You made the statement, "They can't do that without the articles of impeachment." Please elaborate, what were you trying to convey with this statement? It may be technically accurate, but it is also misleading. It is the equivalent to me saying that you've killed hundreds during your lifetime.

Read post 61. That's as clear as I can make it.
As to me killing hundreds during my lifetime, that is patently false, even if you include fish and livestock.

 

[blackangst1]

Is it more complex? Or is it difficult to hold "our" side to the same rules as we want the other side to adhere to?

The difference between a patriot and a terrorist is the side in which you stand.

Look. I get the nuances of war and threats. I'm not so naive to think certain people simply need to die. OBL for example. But egregious cases, like the American Obama droned, is too far. It's a fuzzy line to be sure. I do know the USA, including Trump, cannot simply order someone killed. It should be a last option.

In a similar thing, I'm 100% against the death penalty 100% of the time. Our government shouldn't be in the execution business.

 

[zinfamous]

They can't do that without the articles of impeachment.

When they do their job, they will be allowed to do their job. They have no power to demand that they be lazy useless pricks in the jobs that the people elected them to.

I thought you conservatives were all about being responsible, hard-workers? Why do you vote for the laziest, dumbest humans that don't do shit and spend all of your money on wars and billionaires?

 

[zinfamous]

You have a lot of trouble understanding simple statements. Zin said "Nancy just waiting for the the Repubs to do their job and hold an actual trial". I said "They can't do that without the articles of impeachment".
My statement was a correction of what Zin said. Nancy isn't waiting for the senate to hold a trial. They have no reason to hold a trial because they have no articles of impeachment.

It's probably best if you put me on ignore because you don't seem able to grasp the thoughts and opinions that I express. In the example above, I meant exactly what I said. There was no hidden meaning or agenda, only what I said.

yeah, I don't think you understand what is going on here. Your reply was very...simple. I was sad that you made it.

Nancy is under no pressure to allow a bunch of sub-adult children to openly refuse to do their elected duty. They've already admitted to it, Greenman. Maybe they shouldn't be so weak and stupid at this fake show-trial nonsense?

Do you actually want them to hold a trial? Then call your fucking congress assholes and demand that they hold an actual impeachment trial, against their sworn promise not to. No one is fucking believing your 2nd grade horseshit that "uh ahahahaha, they can't even start until Nancy gives them the articles!" I mean, do you even pay attention to information when it is presented to you? Those rat-fucks already played their hands.

 

[mect]

Read post 61. That's as clear as I can make it.
As to me killing hundreds during my lifetime, that is patently false, even if you include fish and livestock.

I did read post 61, and it doesn't change the fact at all that your post is utterly disingenuous. You are clearly deflecting from the primary point, which is that the reason Pelosi is delaying passing on the articles of impeachment is because she is trying to apply pressure for the Senate to hold some semblance of a fair trial, which the majority leader has blatantly stated he will not do. So while your post may be factually correct, it is completely pointless within the context of what is happening.

Just like my post about you was factually correct, because if you drive a car you've killed hundreds of insects. So no, my statement was not patently false in the exact same way your statement wasn't, but it served no purpose for anything other than making a distracting point that is completely meaningless within any rational context, just like your statement.