Which party is worse, the one that won't impeach because they refuse to see Trump's guilt, or the one that won't impeach and sees it?

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

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Question not phrased properly. Republicans see his guilt but are choosing to ignore it.

Put it that way Republicans are far worse. If Trump got a fair hearing in the Senate I'm sure Pelosi would move to impeach. The way things are going OBE may force it anyway.


So don't refer it to the Senate as there is no mandate in the Constitution. Instead have the impeachment and use it for discovery and releasing the results in October. As the process would be very public, we would know what is happening.

Excusing Pelosi goes nowhere because that's like saying a having a trial for lynching is pointless in the deep south. I don't think you'd excuse people for that so why her?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I think we should all be clear on this and realize that even if there is impeachment Trump will STILL refuse and it will be fought in court.

It might make the court victory quicker and more certain but let’s not harbor any illusions that they would suddenly comply with the law. If that were the case they already would have.

They will likely refuse and it will be fast tracked to the SCOTUS just as quickly as the Bush/Gore election. Pretty much everyone but Thomas will side with the Constitution, even Kavanaugh, and then arrests start and you can bet the US Marshals won't GAF about anything the Executive says about immunity and any attempts at Trump interference including pardon to interfere will likely be limited. Turn over things? Not in a day but in a month heads will roll and I should not be surprised if extraordinary court enforcement records come into play such as seizing of materials by marshals or the Bureau defying Barr.

If a crisis is upon us then extraordinary means to resolve it must be had.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,908
136
So don't refer it to the Senate as there is no mandate in the Constitution. Instead have the impeachment and use it for discovery and releasing the results in October. As the process would be very public, we would know what is happening.

Excusing Pelosi goes nowhere because that's like saying a having a trial for lynching is pointless in the deep south. I don't think you'd excuse people for that so why her?
You have a good point. This guy is such the personification of evil we need to do whatever has the best chance of getting rid of him.

If you are driving someone to the hospital having a heart attack I doubt you will stop for every red light.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,938
5,562
136
And if as a small government conservative you aren’t outraged by the president selecting his handpicked guy who already acted unethically in this matter to investigate law enforcement who had the temerity to investigate the president I’m simply floored.

This is banana republic behavior.
That's a good spin, but it is just spin.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
That's why there needs to be impeachment which is a Constitutional process beyond mere hearing and subpoena as the Executive and subordinates are bound to comply.

We are already there. The House Judiciary committee has formally started an impeachment inquiry. That fulfills the requirements SCOTUS set down for overriding executive privilege or national security in both McGrain v. Daugherty and Quinn v. United States.

SCOTUS specifically said that it does not require the body of the House to sit in impeachment, but that a single committee declaring an impeachment inquiry is enough to remove all roadblocks to it getting literally any information it wants.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,856
136
That's a good spin, but it is just spin.

How is that spin?!? Are you insane???? It should go without saying in any place where the rule of law exists that a public official's own personal designee should not be running investigations into those who investigated the president. Again, this is the hallmark of a banana republic.

Seriously, it is unbelievable how much corruption Republicans are willing to accept just because it's from the right team.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,085
146
Mueller didn't find the evidence to give legitimacy to impeachment.

Why are you stating an easily disprovable lie as if it were the truth? Why are you doing this? Do you think that other people are as illiterate as you are?
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,103
1,550
126
Ok, literally EVERYONE in this nation knows 2 things regarding impeachment. First, that Donald Trump absolutely has committed impeachable acts. Second, that it will take something absurdly egregious even more than what the public knows now for Moscow Mitch to allow anything to come of it in the Senate.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,519
136
A lame duck scenario still beats a recalcitrant old fart scenario. I'll take it.
Okay but you have to assume that all politicians become recalcitrant. I don't think that is a valid assumption. On top of that, it is possible for a newly elected official to be recalcitrant right from the first day they assume office.

It is up to the voters to remove someone when they become recalcitrant. It doesn't happen as often as it should today because of two major issues that have nothing to do with term limits. The most prominent reason is that voters just don't care, and there is nothing we can do about that aside from education and/or blaring information in the media to reach as many audiences as possible. The other reason is representation ratio. It doesn't help to educate thousands of people when an official represents hundreds of thousands. Now you have to educate hundreds of thousands.

Regardless, term limits fix nothing. You still end of with a bunch of shit politicians and end up forcing the few good politicians into early retirement. You also decrease efficiency due to added churn. There are probably a host of other reasons, but these are a few major ones.
 

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,407
423
136
What would impeachment achieve? GOP senate would never let it advance. Trump would get to play the victim, his supporters would support him even harder. It would dominate the media for months with dirt on Trump we already know, but his supporters aren't bothered by. So what would this do?
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,698
136
Okay but you have to assume that all politicians become recalcitrant. I don't think that is a valid assumption. On top of that, it is possible for a newly elected official to be recalcitrant right from the first day they assume office.

It is up to the voters to remove someone when they become recalcitrant. It doesn't happen as often as it should today because of two major issues that have nothing to do with term limits. The most prominent reason is that voters just don't care, and there is nothing we can do about that aside from education and/or blaring information in the media to reach as many audiences as possible. The other reason is representation ratio. It doesn't help to educate thousands of people when an official represents hundreds of thousands. Now you have to educate hundreds of thousands.

Regardless, term limits fix nothing. You still end of with a bunch of shit politicians and end up forcing the few good politicians into early retirement. You also decrease efficiency due to added churn. There are probably a host of other reasons, but these are a few major ones.
OK, good points. However a 30 years limit on SCOTUS appointees my not be a bad idea. Well, I'd hate to see RBG go, TBH. Oh, and I'd hate to see who Trump would appoint in her place!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,856
136
What would impeachment achieve? GOP senate would never let it advance. Trump would get to play the victim, his supporters would support him even harder. It would dominate the media for months with dirt on Trump we already know, but his supporters aren't bothered by. So what would this do?

The audience isn’t his supporters as they are too small in number for him to win. The audience is everyone else.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
What would impeachment achieve? GOP senate would never let it advance. Trump would get to play the victim, his supporters would support him even harder. It would dominate the media for months with dirt on Trump we already know, but his supporters aren't bothered by. So what would this do?

It allows a lot of information that he has worked hard to hide to be brought out into the open.
While his die hard followers won't care, there is a hell of a lot of people that voted for him first time around that would be swayed.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,519
136
OK, good points. However a 30 years limit on SCOTUS appointees my not be a bad idea. Well, I'd hate to see RBG go, TBH. Oh, and I'd hate to see who Trump would appoint in her place!
Yup, be careful what you wish for. I think maybe some term limits would be appropriate for SCOTUS as well, but as you can see with the RBG example, right now we are fucking lucky we don't have them. They would have to be implemented in a way that ensures one party can't appoint them all.
 

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,407
423
136
It allows a lot of information that he has worked hard to hide to be brought out into the open.
While his die hard followers won't care, there is a hell of a lot of people that voted for him first time around that would be swayed.

You sure about that? There was already more out about how crazy, stupid, lying trump was in 2016 than all candidates ever before, combined. Anyone who voted for him them would not be swayed if a few more legaleeze violations come out. Which he wouldn't even be convicted off, due to GOP senate! No thanks, it just lets him whine ever more than usual.

In any case legally removing him from the office would still leave his stink behind, allowing the next trump to do the same thing, claiming Donald as a martyr to the racist cause.. He needs to stay, do as much damage to his followers as possible, so we can burn out this disease.
 

nOOky

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2004
3,004
2,025
136
The house needs to go forward with Impeachment even if it dies there. The Dems need to start pushing what they actively are trying to move forward that is being blocked by the Senate. If Trump is successfully impeached in the house it doesn't have to go to the Senate for removal proceedings. IMHO the house needs to start putting out there to the public the bills they have already passed and their importance in helping the people, and paint the Senate even more unfavorably in that they don't wish to do anything good for the country.

It can all be about optics and the point that only one branch is actively doing anything while the other is obstructing certainly looks better than doing nothing "just because" and wringing their hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse and dank69

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,338
1,215
126
Fixed for accuracy.
Stop with the nonsense. Mueller and his report plainly stated that the evidence gathered didn't support making recommendations for obstruction charges. Are you saying that Mueller lied to Congress? I guess it was AG Barr in a Mueller mask testifying to Congress?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,519
136
... Mueller and his report plainly stated that the evidence gathered didn't support making recommendations for obstruction charges. ...
Mueller didn't say that and the report didn't say that. The only one lying here is you.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,085
146
Stop with the nonsense. Mueller and his report plainly stated that the evidence gathered didn't support making recommendations for obstruction charges.

No, it very plainly did not state anything like that. You didn't read it, as evidenced by such a laughably spurious claim.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,908
136
Stop with the nonsense. Mueller and his report plainly stated that the evidence gathered didn't support making recommendations for obstruction charges. Are you saying that Mueller lied to Congress? I guess it was AG Barr in a Mueller mask testifying to Congress?
Excuse me Skippy but the reported stated the OLC regulation prevented obstruction charges.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Stop with the nonsense. Mueller and his report plainly stated that the evidence gathered didn't support making recommendations for obstruction charges. Are you saying that Mueller lied to Congress? I guess it was AG Barr in a Mueller mask testifying to Congress?

Direct quote from Mueller:

The evidence supports the inference that the President intended Manafort to believe that he could receive a pardon, which would make cooperation with the government as a means of obtaining a lesser sentence unnecessary

That is obstruction of justice.

Even Barr said that instead of making a decision Mueller laid out "evidence on both sides of the question." but the truth is that Mueller laid out 11 cases for obstruction of justice and the only thing against such charges he laid out is that he was not charged with making that call, Congress was.

If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Stop with the nonsense. Mueller and his report plainly stated that the evidence gathered didn't support making recommendations for obstruction charges. Are you saying that Mueller lied to Congress? I guess it was AG Barr in a Mueller mask testifying to Congress?

This is a lie that was sold to you by right wing media. They simply need to tell you what you want to hear and you believe it. You have tied your sense of self worth to the party and if the president is a crook it that would hurt your feelings by affecting your self image, but in the real world you have value and it has nothing to do with what party you believe in. Your fears are not rational. Relax and be happy. We are all the same and in a good way as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
We are already there. The House Judiciary committee has formally started an impeachment inquiry. That fulfills the requirements SCOTUS set down for overriding executive privilege or national security in both McGrain v. Daugherty and Quinn v. United States.

SCOTUS specifically said that it does not require the body of the House to sit in impeachment, but that a single committee declaring an impeachment inquiry is enough to remove all roadblocks to it getting literally any information it wants.

Then they need to get on the stick and if (when) Trump effectively defies the SCOTUS and the House arrest those who do not comply and bring them in irons if need be.