[POLL] Trump Impeachment Poll: Who's Fault Is It?

[TECSHARE]

Nixon was being investigated under a criminal proceeding, which was the basis for subpoenas, which he defied, which was the basis for the article of impeachment against him. Anything else is just you attempting to redefine my argument and demanding I defend your interpretation.

You're now saying one thing lead to the other. Before you were saying one thing was the same as the other, which is not true.

The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding.

An impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. I think you at least understand this now.

You two repeating your preferred interpretation of my words doesn't change what I actually said. The impeachment was based on a criminal proceeding, now its not. Your endless regurgitation is just a sad attempt at distracting from the premise, which is correct.

[1715473787]

1715473787

[1715473787]

1715473787

[1715473787]

1715473787

[1715473787]

1715473787

[1715473787]

1715473787

[1715473787]

1715473787

[suchmoon]

I voted for nutildah, based on my scientific analysis of blame disbursement in this thread.

Could also be that Nixon guy who is also mentioned a lot but isn't an option in the poll unfortunately.

[importedwaffle]

Haven't they been trying to impeach the president since before he started his first day?  lol

[nutildah]

I voted for nutildah, based on my scientific analysis of blame disbursement in this thread.

Could also be that Nixon guy who is also mentioned a lot but isn't an option in the poll unfortunately.

Those are both strong options. Even though Nixon's brain is being kept alive inside a jar in a secret military base in Antarctica, I didn't think to include him as an option seeing as how he was also a Republican. But you could very well be right, who knows. I get all my news through 2 sources: a week-old copy of USA Today that I have delivered to my palm frond hut in the Philippines, and Infowars stories that I hear second hand from my outlaw miner friend, Leroy F.

Haven't they been trying to impeach the president since before he started his first day?  lol

Indeed. But now the shitstraws have just piled too high on the camel's back. It couldn't carry any more shit, and its back broke. Too many shitstraws.

[Spendulus]

I voted for nutildah, based on my scientific analysis of blame disbursement in this thread.

Could also be that Nixon guy who is also mentioned a lot but isn't an option in the poll unfortunately.

Those are both strong options. Even though Nixon's brain is being kept alive inside a jar in a secret military base in Antarctica, I didn't think to include him as an option seeing as how he was also a Republican. But you could very well be right, who knows. I get all my news through 2 sources: a week-old copy of USA Today that I have delivered to my palm frond hut in the Philippines, and Infowars stories that I hear second hand from my outlaw miner friend, Leroy F.

Haven't they been trying to impeach the president since before he started his first day?   lol

Indeed. But now the shitstraws have just piled too high on the camel's back. It couldn't carry any more shit, and its back broke. Too many shitstraws.

These days, we have trucks.

Big trucks.

Camels just don't cut it, no air conditioning.

Big trucks can carry a whole lot of shit.

[BADecker]

These days, we have trucks.

Big trucks.

Camels just don't cut it, no air conditioning.

Big trucks can carry a whole lot of shit.

Camel shit.     

[Spendulus]

It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.

Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.

That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."

[TwitchySeal]

It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.

Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.

That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."

The only vote she is required to have is the actual vote to impeach.  There is no requirement to vote on whether or not they should vote to impeach.  

[Spendulus]

It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.

Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.

That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."

The only vote she is required to have is the actual vote to impeach.  There is no requirement to vote on whether or not they should vote to impeach.  

That's not really accurate. It represents one opinion, and as you know, there are other opinions.

In a broad sense, nothing could ever get done in parliamentary bodies without guidelines on issues like this. When is the discussion starting? when does it end? Etc.

That is why...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

[TwitchySeal]

It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.

Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.

That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."

The only vote she is required to have is the actual vote to impeach.  There is no requirement to vote on whether or not they should vote to impeach.  

That's not really accurate. It represents one opinion, and as you know, there are other opinions.

In a broad sense, nothing could ever get done in parliamentary bodies without guidelines on issues like this. When is the discussion starting? when does it end? Etc.

That is why...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

I'm not saying there aren't guidelines.  There are.  Just saying that a vote on whether or not to vote isn't one of them.

If the House votes to impeach the president, then the president been impeached and must be tried in the Senate.  Nobody has the power to prohibit the House from taking the vote.  Nobody has the power to declare the vote invalid since the House has the sole power of impeachment. 

It doesn't matter whether or not it's for a crime and it doesn't matter if they voted on whether they should vote or not first.

There doesn't even need to be any House hearings or investigation. 

All that matters is that more reps voted yes than no on 1 or more articles of impeachment.

[KingScorpio]

trump wont be impeached it will backfire and massively damage the democratic party.

[Spendulus]

It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.

Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.

That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."

The only vote she is required to have is the actual vote to impeach.  There is no requirement to vote on whether or not they should vote to impeach.  

That's not really accurate. It represents one opinion, and as you know, there are other opinions.

In a broad sense, nothing could ever get done in parliamentary bodies without guidelines on issues like this. When is the discussion starting? when does it end? Etc.

That is why...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

I'm not saying there aren't guidelines.  There are.  Just saying that a vote on whether or not to vote isn't one of them.

If the House votes to impeach the president, then the president been impeached and must be tried in the Senate.  Nobody has the power to prohibit the House from taking the vote.  Nobody has the power to declare the vote invalid since the House has the sole power of impeachment.  

It doesn't matter whether or not it's for a crime and it doesn't matter if they voted on whether they should vote or not first.

There doesn't even need to be any House hearings or investigation.  

All that matters is that more reps voted yes than no on 1 or more articles of impeachment.

And having the Dems trivialized the matter of impeachment, the Senate can DECLINE TO HEAR THE CASE.

It'd be priceless to see the spectacle of the Dems breaking / changing their rules, but arguing the Senate should remain with the traditional rules.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

[TwitchySeal]

It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.

Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.

That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."

The only vote she is required to have is the actual vote to impeach.  There is no requirement to vote on whether or not they should vote to impeach.  

That's not really accurate. It represents one opinion, and as you know, there are other opinions.

In a broad sense, nothing could ever get done in parliamentary bodies without guidelines on issues like this. When is the discussion starting? when does it end? Etc.

That is why...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

I'm not saying there aren't guidelines.  There are.  Just saying that a vote on whether or not to vote isn't one of them.

If the House votes to impeach the president, then the president been impeached and must be tried in the Senate.  Nobody has the power to prohibit the House from taking the vote.  Nobody has the power to declare the vote invalid since the House has the sole power of impeachment.  

It doesn't matter whether or not it's for a crime and it doesn't matter if they voted on whether they should vote or not first.

There doesn't even need to be any House hearings or investigation.  

All that matters is that more reps voted yes than no on 1 or more articles of impeachment.

And having the Dems trivialized the matter of impeachment, the Senate can DECLINE TO HEAR THE CASE.

It'd be priceless to see the spectacle of the Dems breaking / changing their rules, but arguing the Senate should remain with the traditional rules.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

Yeah, Mitch is definitely capable of doing that.  That's basically what he did with Merrick Garland.
I doubt he would though, unless he thought Trump could actually be convicted, which is very unlikely.  Having the trial and not convicting him seems like the best result for the GOP.  At least in the short term politically.

I hadn't read about this ruling before:

The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a “trial,” and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senate’s “sole power” to “try” means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding.

I would think it probably affirms that since the House has "sole power" to "impeach" it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding.  Although with impeachment there is no required proceeding like there is in a Senate trial.  They just need to have one vote.  So maybe it's not the same.  Who knows.  

[Spendulus]

It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.

Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.

That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."

The only vote she is required to have is the actual vote to impeach.  There is no requirement to vote on whether or not they should vote to impeach.  

That's not really accurate. It represents one opinion, and as you know, there are other opinions.

In a broad sense, nothing could ever get done in parliamentary bodies without guidelines on issues like this. When is the discussion starting? when does it end? Etc.

That is why...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

I'm not saying there aren't guidelines.  There are.  Just saying that a vote on whether or not to vote isn't one of them.

If the House votes to impeach the president, then the president been impeached and must be tried in the Senate.  Nobody has the power to prohibit the House from taking the vote.  Nobody has the power to declare the vote invalid since the House has the sole power of impeachment.  

It doesn't matter whether or not it's for a crime and it doesn't matter if they voted on whether they should vote or not first.

There doesn't even need to be any House hearings or investigation.  

All that matters is that more reps voted yes than no on 1 or more articles of impeachment.

And having the Dems trivialized the matter of impeachment, the Senate can DECLINE TO HEAR THE CASE.

It'd be priceless to see the spectacle of the Dems breaking / changing their rules, but arguing the Senate should remain with the traditional rules.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

Yeah, Mitch is definitely capable of doing that.  That's basically what he did with Merrick Garland.
I doubt he would though, unless he thought Trump could actually be convicted, which is very unlikely.  Having the trial and not convicting him seems like the best result for the GOP.  At least in the short term politically.

I hadn't read about this ruling before:

The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a “trial,” and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senate’s “sole power” to “try” means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding.

I would think it probably affirms that since the House has "sole power" to "impeach" it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding.  Although with impeachment there is no required proceeding like there is in a Senate trial.  They just need to have one vote.  So maybe it's not the same.  Who knows.  

Actually I think the Senate should decline to hear the case, if it is frivolous and due process has been flagrantly violated, and if the Dems keep acting like spoiled brats. But that's just me, others may feel differently.

[TwitchySeal]

It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.

Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.

That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."

The only vote she is required to have is the actual vote to impeach.  There is no requirement to vote on whether or not they should vote to impeach.  

That's not really accurate. It represents one opinion, and as you know, there are other opinions.

In a broad sense, nothing could ever get done in parliamentary bodies without guidelines on issues like this. When is the discussion starting? when does it end? Etc.

That is why...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

I'm not saying there aren't guidelines.  There are.  Just saying that a vote on whether or not to vote isn't one of them.

If the House votes to impeach the president, then the president been impeached and must be tried in the Senate.  Nobody has the power to prohibit the House from taking the vote.  Nobody has the power to declare the vote invalid since the House has the sole power of impeachment.  

It doesn't matter whether or not it's for a crime and it doesn't matter if they voted on whether they should vote or not first.

There doesn't even need to be any House hearings or investigation.  

All that matters is that more reps voted yes than no on 1 or more articles of impeachment.

And having the Dems trivialized the matter of impeachment, the Senate can DECLINE TO HEAR THE CASE.

It'd be priceless to see the spectacle of the Dems breaking / changing their rules, but arguing the Senate should remain with the traditional rules.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

Yeah, Mitch is definitely capable of doing that.  That's basically what he did with Merrick Garland.
I doubt he would though, unless he thought Trump could actually be convicted, which is very unlikely.  Having the trial and not convicting him seems like the best result for the GOP.  At least in the short term politically.

I hadn't read about this ruling before:

The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a “trial,” and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senate’s “sole power” to “try” means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding.

I would think it probably affirms that since the House has "sole power" to "impeach" it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding.  Although with impeachment there is no required proceeding like there is in a Senate trial.  They just need to have one vote.  So maybe it's not the same.  Who knows.  

Actually I think the Senate should decline to hear the case, if it is frivolous and due process has been flagrantly violated, and if the Dems keep acting like spoiled brats. But that's just me, others may feel differently.

Are you saying think it's ok for a president to ask other governments to open investigations on their political rivals to help them get re elected?

Or are you saying you don't think Trump asked Ukraine and China to investigate Biden and his son because he thought it would help him get more votes if Biden were nominated.  Basically it was just a coincidence that Biden happened to be his most likely General Election opponent. 

Or is it something else I'm missing?
 

[tvbcof]

Are you saying think it's ok for a president to ask other governments to open investigations on their political rivals to help them get re elected?

Or are you saying you don't think Trump asked Ukraine and China to investigate Biden and his son because he thought it would help him get more votes if Biden were nominated.  Basically it was just a coincidence that Biden happened to be his most likely General Election opponent. 

Or is it something else I'm missing?
 

I see nothing wrong with asking anyone to open an investigation if there is suspicion of a crime.  I'm all about criminals being investigated, and even more importantly...and much more rarely...actually prosecuted.  Being a politician should not insulate one from investigation into wrongdoing or give someone a free pass for criminal behavior.  That's a big problem that the U.S. and many other countries have and part of the reason why we have such corrupt governments.

If politician A asks country B to investigate a non-existent crime against politician B for political reasons then politician A is committing a crime for which he/she can be punished.  That's the deterance.  If politician B is guilty of a crime then it's doing the world a favor to pound his balls flat.

Here's an idea:  How about if the political parties put forward candidates who are not criminals?  Someone should try that someday.

[TECSHARE]

Wow, you just got proven wrong and then you called the person who proved you wrong "Captain Obvious."

The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding.

Wrong. An impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. You were wrong, now admit it.

Hey look at this tidbit I found in The Constitution of the United States of America.

"An Indictable Crime

The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.

There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.

Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature."

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

You are wrong. Are you going to admit it Nutilduhh?

[TwitchySeal]

Are you saying think it's ok for a president to ask other governments to open investigations on their political rivals to help them get re elected?

Or are you saying you don't think Trump asked Ukraine and China to investigate Biden and his son because he thought it would help him get more votes if Biden were nominated.  Basically it was just a coincidence that Biden happened to be his most likely General Election opponent.  

Or is it something else I'm missing?
 

I see nothing wrong with asking anyone to open an investigation if there is suspicion of a crime.  I'm all about criminals being investigated, and even more importantly...and much more rarely...actually prosecuted.  Being a politician should not insulate one from investigation into wrongdoing or give someone a free pass for criminal behavior.  That's a big problem that the U.S. and many other countries have and part of the reason why we have such corrupt governments.

If politician A asks country B to investigate a non-existent crime against politician B for political reasons then politician A is committing a crime for which he/she can be punished.  That's the deterance.  If politician B is guilty of a crime then it's doing the world a favor to pound his balls flat.

The thing is, when you're the president you have the FBI, CIA, and DOJ all at your disposal.  They are all fully capable of investigating Bidens and his sons behavior as VP, even if it involved another country - and if they found anything it could actually be used to prosecute Bide.  He also could have gone through the Department of State.

Instead he asked the president of Ukraine to do him a favor.  I mean, wtf?

Even if Ukraine comes back and says "oh yeah, Biden broke our laws, he's guilty!" It literally would mean nothing over here criminally.  The only thing it would do was give Trump ammo to attack Biden on the campaign trail.

Am I making sense?

Here's an idea:  How about if the political parties put forward candidates who are not criminals?  Someone should try that someday.

Nixon, Carter, Raegan, Bush, Bush, Obama, most of the GOP candidates from 2016 and all the Dem candidates besides Biden, Beto and Warren (I'll throw her in so we don't have to debate the pocohantas thing.)

I'm not aware of any evidence, or even semi-reasonable accusations that any of these people were criminals when they were running for president.

(Exceptions being marijuana use, Bernie getting arrested for protesting and Nixons campaign for second term)

[TECSHARE]

The thing is, when you're the president you have the FBI, CIA, and DOJ all at your disposal.  They are all fully capable of investigating Bidens and his sons behavior as VP, even if it involved another country - and if they found anything it could actually be used to prosecute Bide.  He also could have gone through the Department of State.

Instead he asked the president of Ukraine to do him a favor.  I mean, wtf?

Even if Ukraine comes back and says "oh yeah, Biden broke our laws, he's guilty!" It literally would mean nothing over here criminally.  The only thing it would do was give Trump ammo to attack Biden on the campaign trail.

Am I making sense?

Here's an idea:  How about if the political parties put forward candidates who are not criminals?  Someone should try that someday.

Nixon, Carter, Raegan, Bush, Bush, Obama, all the Dem candidates besides Biden and Warren (I'll throw her in so we don't have to debate the pocohantas thing.)

I'm not aware of any evidence, or even semi-reasonable accusations that any of these people were criminals when they were running for president.

(Exceptions being marijuana use, Bernie getting arrested for protesting and Nixons campaign for second term)

Your logic makes zero sense. All of those organizations were infiltrated and openly hostile to the president, the FBI, The DOJ, and ESPECIALLY the CIA. The President is the head of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of government. This is literally his job.

"Even if Ukraine comes back and says "oh yeah, Biden broke our laws, he's guilty!" It literally would mean nothing over here criminally."

Are you sure about that? That sounds a lot like wishful thinking to me. There are a lot of regulations regarding officials and criminal activity, even outside of US jurisdiction. Furthermore, don't the American people deserve to have this information? Funny, that was the argument made about climbing up Trump's ass for over 3 solid years...

[TwitchySeal]

The thing is, when you're the president you have the FBI, CIA, and DOJ all at your disposal.  They are all fully capable of investigating Bidens and his sons behavior as VP, even if it involved another country - and if they found anything it could actually be used to prosecute Bide.  He also could have gone through the Department of State.

Instead he asked the president of Ukraine to do him a favor.  I mean, wtf?

Even if Ukraine comes back and says "oh yeah, Biden broke our laws, he's guilty!" It literally would mean nothing over here criminally.  The only thing it would do was give Trump ammo to attack Biden on the campaign trail.

Am I making sense?

Here's an idea:  How about if the political parties put forward candidates who are not criminals?  Someone should try that someday.

Nixon, Carter, Raegan, Bush, Bush, Obama, all the Dem candidates besides Biden and Warren (I'll throw her in so we don't have to debate the pocohantas thing.)

I'm not aware of any evidence, or even semi-reasonable accusations that any of these people were criminals when they were running for president.

(Exceptions being marijuana use, Bernie getting arrested for protesting and Nixons campaign for second term)

Your logic makes zero sense. All of those organizations were infiltrated and openly hostile to the president, the FBI, The DOJ, and ESPECIALLY the CIA. The President is the head of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of government. This is literally his job.

"Even if Ukraine comes back and says "oh yeah, Biden broke our laws, he's guilty!" It literally would mean nothing over here criminally."

Are you sure about that? That sounds a lot like wishful thinking to me. There are a lot of regulations regarding officials and criminal activity, even outside of US jurisdiction. Furthermore, don't the American people deserve to have this information? Funny, that was the argument made about climbing up Trump's ass for over 3 solid years...

Fine fine.  muh deepstate, I get it.

Even though the head of the FBI, CIA and DOJ all serve at the pleasure of the president, we should obviously trust Ukraines investigation results more than ours.  And the fact that it's the presidents political adversary is just a coincidence.  He really just can't stand any corruption anywhere.