Trump May Be Acquitted in a Senate Impeachment Trial. That's Not the Same as Being Exonerated

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
It's def more subtle than his efforts with Zelensky. Trump & McConnell can't afford to lose more than a few votes in formulating the rules. The whitewash will be a lot tougher if Dems get to call the witnesses they want.
The ghosts of impeachment past have come to visit Chuck Schumer. CNN is running a story with some pretty politically inconvenient quotes from Larry King Live and other sources where Schumer defines the role of the Senate as a “body that was susceptible to the whims of politics”.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,111
926
126
Just regurgitated Republican talking points.

Right...and I can say Democrat talking points when someone here posts something too. What we really have is a bunch of people on both sides of the aisle, yelling, with nobody paying attention to each other.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: JEDIYoda

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
Right...and I can say Democrat talking points when someone here posts something too. What we really have is a bunch of people on both sides of the aisle, yelling, with nobody paying attention to each other.
Do you think it's ok for a President to solicit dirt on his political opponents from a foreign country?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,007
8,041
136
And who will lead them? Vile as he is, Trump has a charismatic appeal to the base like nobody else. He's the master of mind fuck.

Impeachment is a side show, because Republicans stand by their leader. And we do not have the votes to overcome that.

We'll do our part to get rid of him in 2020, via the election. But even if that works... he symbolizes far bigger problems that do not simply go away. The base is still crazy, and only a few Republicans even pay lip service to the recognition of that. Not a single one stands to oppose it. Those cowards will let this disease fester. And this disease needs no leader, it has the human condition. It has us and social media, it needs nothing more to end us.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Right...and I can say Democrat talking points when someone here posts something too. What we really have is a bunch of people on both sides of the aisle, yelling, with nobody paying attention to each other.

When you can't pound the facts or the law, pound the table. That's exactly what Conrad Black did, and you apparently fell for it.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Impeachment is a side show, because Republicans stand by their leader. And we do not have the votes to overcome that.

We'll do our part to get rid of him in 2020, via the election. But even if that works... he symbolizes far bigger problems that do not simply go away. The base is still crazy, and only a few Republicans even pay lip service to the recognition of that. Not a single one stands to oppose it. Those cowards will let this disease fester. And this disease needs no leader, it has the human condition. It has us and social media, it needs nothing more to end us.

Trump's actions wrt Ukraine were horribly immoral & wrong. He corrupted every person complicit in the scheme. That's obvious. It can't be emphasized enough. If the GOP wants to endorse that, then they're as guilty as Trump. They need to be made to wear the stink of it, if only for the sake of posterity. The Trump presidency is a crisis in morality for America. You know- all those quaint old fashioned values like honesty, integrity, fair play, mutual respect & common decency. Let's hope the lust for delicious liberal tears doesn't overwhelm those things entirely.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
The ghosts of impeachment past have come to visit Chuck Schumer. CNN is running a story with some pretty politically inconvenient quotes from Larry King Live and other sources where Schumer defines the role of the Senate as a “body that was susceptible to the whims of politics”.
Statements like this lead me to believe that partisan bitterness, and not the law, are the Republicans' primary motivation here.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
Impeachment is a side show, because Republicans stand by their leader. And we do not have the votes to overcome that.

We'll do our part to get rid of him in 2020, via the election. But even if that works... he symbolizes far bigger problems that do not simply go away. The base is still crazy, and only a few Republicans even pay lip service to the recognition of that. Not a single one stands to oppose it. Those cowards will let this disease fester. And this disease needs no leader, it has the human condition. It has us and social media, it needs nothing more to end us.

Never mind impeachment or mental capacity, I suspect even if Trump's diet got the better of him and he keeled over and joined the choir invisible, the Republican response would involve the phrase "he's just resting".
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Statements like this lead me to believe that partisan bitterness, and not the law, are the Republicans' primary motivation here.

Their primary motivation is fear. They can't turn on Trump. He owns the GOP base. He'll lay the Party to waste if they turn on him. Scorched earth. They can't win w/o him, and he knows it. They've crazified that base for decades, thinking they could always control it, never dreaming that it could get away from them. Trump is the result of their callous arrogance & greed.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,960
782
136
I don't agree. Trump is imperiling democracy in the US in a way that Bush did not.

You are right, Trump isn't imperiling democracy in the same way as Bush. Trump's fuckups haven't resulted in ending the lives, dreams, hopes, and futures of hundreds of thousands of people. He's fucking democracy as hard as he can, yet still not as competently and thoroughly as Bush did.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
You are right, Trump isn't imperiling democracy in the same way as Bush. Trump's fuckups haven't resulted in ending the lives, dreams, hopes, and futures of hundreds of thousands of people. He's fucking democracy as hard as he can, yet still not as competently and thoroughly as Bush did.

If Trump brings down democracy in the US, it will be worse than Bush's wars.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
I don't agree. Trump is imperiling democracy in the US in a way that Bush did not.

I have family members who were gravely maimed for life due to Bush's lies about Iraq and "what they did on 9/11,” and they count themselves lucky versus some of their brothers.

So far Trump had just caused drama, spread corruption and wasted money.
You can't really compare that to a body count half a million high. No one is dead. Full stop.

No American's lives are really changed due to this actions. If you didn't watch the news or go on the Twitter/FB, would you even notice in your daily life? Probably not.

He's a terrible president, but we're getting on despite his bullshit.

Put it this way, if he loses the next election, what's historically notable about his presidency? Nothing but impeachment. He'll be like one of those forgettable 19th century presidents nobody knows about anymore. His best hope is being remembered as "a notable cvnt." And that's it.

Bush would be noted tho. 9/11, starting and losing two wars, and worst financial crash in 75yrs? That will earn you a couple sentences in the history book.
 
Last edited:

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Statements like this lead me to believe that partisan bitterness, and not the law, are the Republicans' primary motivation here.
Statements like Schumer’s lead me to believe that partisan bitterness, and not the law, are the Democrats’ primary motivation here.

Care to comment on why Schumer would assert that politics can influence Senate procedures for one impeached President but not another?

It reaks of hypocrisy. There are similar contradictory statements from the GOP on impeachment as well.
 
Last edited:

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
I have family members who were gravely maimed for life due to Bush's lies about Iraq and "what they did on 9/11,” and they count themselves lucky versus some of their brothers.

So far Trump had just caused drama, spread corruption and wasted money.
You can't really compare that to a body count half a million high. No one is dead. Full stop.

No American's lives are really changed due to this actions. If you didn't watch the news or go on the Twitter/FB, would you even notice in your daily life? Probably not.

He's a terrible president, but we're getting on despite his bullshit.

Put it this way, if he loses the next election, what's historically notable about his presidency? Nothing but impeachment. He'll be like one of those forgettable 19th century presidents nobody knows about anymore. His best hope is being remembered as "a notable cvnt." And that's it.

Bush would be noted tho. 9/11, starting and losing two wars, and worst financial crash in 75yrs? That will earn you a couple sentences in the history book.
Bush didn’t start the WoT. Bin Laden did. At the outset, Bush was a popular wartime President. Congress bipartisanly supported him to thunderous applause. To say that Bush duped the country into war is absurd given the intelligence and who had access to it.

Bush lacked the leadership to set strategic goals for the exit strategy to those wars.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,120
10,946
136
Bush didn’t start the WoT. Bin Laden did. At the outset, Bush was a popular wartime President. Congress bipartisanly supported him to thunderous applause. To say that Bush duped the country into war is absurd given the intelligence and who had access to it.

Bush lacked the leadership to set strategic goals for the exit strategy to those wars.

going into afghanistan to find bin Laden is at least justifiable in some sense (were it a more established country, there's no way we could have rolled in the way we did). Iraq OTOH was basically a farce and we had no business there. I was a naive young kid at the time and supported going into Iraq. Oh how wrong I was - 15 years of hindsight later.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
Bush didn’t start the WoT. Bin Laden did. At the outset, Bush was a popular wartime President. Congress bipartisanly supported him to thunderous applause. To say that Bush duped the country into war is absurd given the intelligence and who had access to it.

Bush lacked the leadership to set strategic goals for the exit strategy to those wars.

Bin laden had nothing to do with Iraq, but the Bush wh carefully tried to tie them to it to justify their pointless, bloody war.

For all the trillions spent and thousands killed, what did we accomplish?

The whole gd Middle East is an even worse disaster to this day, and we've only lost credibility and influence in the region.

And to the original point, how is Trump fighting every subpoena in court and trying to cheat in elections worse? Craven and corrupt, but more damaging to the LT interests of the country? Not buying it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starbuck1975

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Bin laden had nothing to do with Iraq, but the Bush wh carefully tried to tie them to it to justify their pointless, bloody war.

For all the trillions spent and thousands killed, what did we accomplish?

The whole gd Middle East is an even worse disaster to this day, and we've only lost credibility and influence in the region.

And to the original point, how is Trump fighting every subpoena in court and trying to cheat in elections worse? Craven and corrupt, but more damaging to the LT interests of the country? Not buying it.
9/11 is what truly broke America
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
going into afghanistan to find bin Laden is at least justifiable in some sense (were it a more established country, there's no way we could have rolled in the way we did). Iraq OTOH was basically a farce and we had no business there. I was a naive young kid at the time and supported going into Iraq. Oh how wrong I was - 15 years of hindsight later.
I was in uniform when 9/11 happened. Like many, I was eager to go after Bin Laden and the Taliban, I expect as many young men did after Pearl Harbor. Once Bush started to beat the war drum for Iraq is when I chose to become a civilian again. I will forever detest all the politicians who lacked the courage to stop that war from ever happening. No politician who supported the invasion of Iraq deserves to sit in the White House.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Bush didn’t start the WoT. Bin Laden did. At the outset, Bush was a popular wartime President. Congress bipartisanly supported him to thunderous applause. To say that Bush duped the country into war is absurd given the intelligence and who had access to it.

Bush lacked the leadership to set strategic goals for the exit strategy to those wars.

The claims of WMD's, african uranium, reconstituted nuclear programs & harboring Al Qaeda were all bullshit. When Shinseki rightfully claimed it would take several hundred thousand troops to pacify post-invasion Iraq they shitcanned him.

All of which has zero relevance to the impeachment of Trump. Or maybe the Country should let him off the hook because Bush was worse, or something, anything to distract us from what must be done which is to cleanse the office of the Presidency from the scum now occupying it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z