• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Donald Impeachment

BarcaDeac said:
what percentage of these people stonewalling or "nothing to see here" Republicans would tell you to let a cop conduct his search if you've got nothing to hide?
Click to expand...

All of them if that person isn’t a rich white guy.
 
The hypocrisy doesn’t matter. People don’t pay attention, are lazy and they “believe” things instead of reasoning into them. You can’t reason them out of a position they never thought critically about.

You believe that people should acquiesce to any search by the cops even if it is a totally bogus investigation? Yes, if you have nothing to hide what’s the problem? So then you must also think the WH should turn over documents to the impeachment inquiry? No because that is a bogus investigation.

What’s the point of even trying to reach people who “reason” that way?
 
And the GOP has such low expectations for the “poorly educated” that they operate on that level. Which kills me when interviews don’t call out that hypocrisy for what it is so the rest of the public can see it.

If that Lindsey Graham clip doesn’t get thrown in every pub defender’s face on the Sunday shows, the terrorists have already won.
 
Gowdy from 2015 during BENGHAZI!!!!: “The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles.”
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Gowdy from 2015 during BENGHAZI!!!!: “The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles.”
Click to expand...

yeah but that was a valid investigation you see and not a witch hunt
 
This is probably just shouting into the wind but I haven’t found any source for the claim that the House has to vote to open an impeachment inquiry prior to exercising their investigative powers relayed to the inquiry. The inquiry is going through duly authorized and established committees which to me gives it the imprimatur of the House and a valid investigation.

Obviously the WH letter yesterday also confounded the role that the House and Senate play in this process and I imagine many in the WH believe impeachment is the actual removal process (and don’t know the two roles the chambers have).

These guys just aren’t very smart and things went way way too far.
 
I think they know that argument is totally bogus. Well Donald definitely does not know but the ones writing must know. It’s all for show/court of public opinion because Joe Red State doesn’t know either.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
or "regicide" as Conservatives are now calling it
Click to expand...

Lol yeah last night a Donald defender on CNN said that impeaching the president is unconstitutional and a coup. Then stopped talking. No follow up or clarification. The fact that the next question didn’t provide that impeachment is literally allowed for in the constitution blew my mind.

Another schill clarified this from the Clinton impeachment by saying this is the first term and his was the second so that’s acceptable while this isn’t. These aren’t even colorable legal arguments. They’re desperate flailings in the wind
 
Last edited:
06deacon said:
I think they know that argument is totally bogus. Well Donald definitely does not know but the ones writing must know. It’s all for show/court of public opinion because Joe Red State doesn’t know either.
Click to expand...

Yeah as far as I can find there was never an official vote to open an impeachment inquiry for Nixon or Clinton either. Regardless the House should just quickly vote on it then say “great let’s move on then” since that’s checked off.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Lol yeah last night a Donald defender on CNN said that impeaching the president is unconstitutional and a coup. Then stopped talking. No follow up or clarification. The fact that the next question didn’t provide that impeachment is literally allowed for in the constitution blew my mind.

Another shill clarified this from the Clinton impeachment by saying this is the first term and his was the second so that’s acceptable while this isn’t. These aren’t even colorable legal arguments. They’re desperate flailings in the wind
Click to expand...

"just like with Nixon, you can get us on our crimes after re-election is no longer possible"
 
Shitclouding. Muddying the waters to keep the base in the dark. To paraphrase Costanza, it’s not hypocrisy until you acknowledge it or get called directly on it.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Yeah as far as I can find there was never an official vote to open an impeachment inquiry for Nixon or Clinton either. Regardless the House should just quickly vote on it then say “great let’s move on then” since that’s checked off.
Click to expand...

Actually the House passed resolutions establishing impeachment proceedings for both.

Oct 8, 1998, the House formally set up impeachment proceedings for Bill Clinton. They formally referred two article of impeachment to the Senate on Dec 19, 1998.

The House adopted a resolution, HR 803, designating the Judiciary Committee to investigate Richard Nixon for impeachable offenses. Nixon resigned before the Committee finished its work.

The House also formally passed a resolution resolution beginning the impeachment process against Andrew Johnson Feb 24, 1868. They presented 11 articles of impeachment to the Senate on March 3, 1868.

So the previous three impeachments each did start with a House Resolution directing a House Committee to consider the matter.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Also not to go back onto the tangent, but Juul packages and cartridges both have warning labels on them. I was surprised to see Juul commercials but I also find it absurd that alcohol companies can advertise but cigarettes can't. Just all about having the right politicians in your ear over the decades I suppose.
Click to expand...

The difference is if you use tobacco the way it is intended to be used you will become addicted. Millions of people drink responsibly and aren't alcoholics.

You can drink in your home or a neighbors and not impact the health of anyone. You can't smoke around anyone and not impact them.

It's not at all the same.
 
Good find there. I didn’t realize that about the Nixon situation - the Clinton was slightly different because they’d already had an independent counsel investigate (so the committee side of things were pretty perfunctory). I was thinking more along the lines of needing a vote to “legalize” any subpoena power

The best phrasing I suppose is there is no requirement that they have such an inquiry nor is there any law or regulation providing that a failure to hold a vote to approve the inquiry allows the WH to ignore issued subpoenas.
 
RJKarl said:
The difference is if you use tobacco the way it is intended to be used you will become addicted. Millions of people drink responsibly and aren't alcoholics.

You can drink in your home or a neighbors and not impact the health of anyone. You can't smoke around anyone and not impact them.

It's not at all the same.
Click to expand...

I mean you can get drunk the first night you ever drink and kill yourself and others on the road which isn’t true of tobacco. Both tobacco and alcohol kill a ridiculous number of people annually and IMO should be regulated the same from an advertising vantage point.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I mean you can get drunk the first night you ever drink and kill yourself and others on the road which isn’t true of tobacco. Both tobacco and alcohol kill a ridiculous number of people annually and IMO should be regulated the same from an advertising vantage point.
Click to expand...

Alcohol isn't designed to kill you. Tobacco is.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
or "regicide" as Conservatives are now calling it
Click to expand...

Seriously? That’s killing a king. That’s a tacit admission that they view Trump as a king.
 
The emoluments Trump is getting from Turkey to allow them to massacre our Kurdish allies should absolutely be an article of impeachment.

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...has-a-massive-conflict-of-interest-in-turkey/

"The conflict of interest and the way it could affect Trump’s position on important issues—or at least the perception of how it could affect his position—quickly became obvious after Trump made this comment. In June 2016, after Trump said he supported a ban on immigration by people from countries he said were associated with Islamic terrorism—he called them “terror countries”—Erdogan objected, and so did Dogan, and both threatened to remove Trump’s name from the buildings.

That’s no small threat—according to personal financial disclosures filed by Trump, since he launched his bid for the presidency, he has earned somewhere between $3.2 million and $17 million in royalties from the deal. (The amounts are given in ranges; the precise figures are unclear.) "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top