Impeach the MotherF%@KER!

[normiss 622]

Oral sex and lying about it triggers impeachment, but abuses of power involving national security don't. - Republican position on impeachment

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

 

1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

It is consistent with the new Republican Party platform though.  That platform being, Trump is King, and whatever is in Trump's personal interest is by definition in the national interest.  On the other hand, any criticism of Trump, or any disagreement with his brain-dead policies, is by definition unpatriotic and even treasonous.

I recall the days when the Republican party at least pretended to have principles and policies.  That party is dead if not buried.  Now it is a personality cult.  I'm quite certain that Trump could walk into Congress, shoot Schiff and Pelosi in the head in front of all the members of the House and Senate, and not one Republican would speak a word of criticism.

Don

 

49 minutes ago, jakee said:

That’s the stupidest part of the Republican’s intellectually bankrupt defence that all of the witnesses against him must be ‘never-trumpers’ Who can therefore be ignored no matter what the content of their evidence. The biggest ‘never-trumpers’ who actually made their feelings known during the primaries became full blown Trump acolytes in the house and senate as soon as the votes were in. The only principle they’re actually interested in is power.

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that the result of this whole mess will be either the end of the Republican Party or the end of democracy as we know it. 

The results of both last year's mid term elections and the more recent 'off year' elections give some hope, but not a lot.

And for the hardcore right wingers, I never voted for a D for anything beyond a local election until last year.

[wmw999 2,121]

It's the "fuck you, I got mine" attitude. As long as one's own personal ox isn't gored, then goring someone else's counts as entertainment, and is good. 

Wendy P.

[yoink 321]

So we're off to trial in the Senate. No real surprises there...

 

Trump tweeted "If you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast, so we can have a fair trial in the Senate, and so that our country can get back to business."

 

Question - does ANYONE here think that the Senate trial will be anything remotely close to fair & impartial? Anyone? 

I still believe there is zero chance Trump will be impeached.

 

Even the fucking constitutional lawyer called by the Republicans yesterday weaseled out an answer about 'not doing impeachment this fast' rather than concentrating on the law and giving an opinion on the legality of Trump's behavior. 

 

 

[ryoder 1,384]

13 minutes ago, yoink said:

I still believe there is zero chance Trump will be impeached.

 

The term "impeachment" is analogous to the term "indictment" in criminal law.

If the House votes for impeachment, then he has been impeached.

The Senate follows with a trail, then either convicts (and removes him from office), or acquits. 

[yoink 321]

5 minutes ago, ryoder said:

The term "impeachment" is analogous to the term "indictment" in criminal law.

If the House votes for impeachment, then he has been impeached.

 The Senate follows with a trail, then either convicts (and removes him from office), or acquits. 

Fair point. I think there is zero chance Trump will be convicted by the Senate, is probably a more accurate way to phrase it then.

[DJL 232]

30 minutes ago, ryoder said:

The term "impeachment" is analogous to the term "indictment" in criminal law.

If the House votes for impeachment, then he has been impeached.

The Senate follows with a trail, then either convicts (and removes him from office), or acquits. 

Removal from office is not the automatic penalty for impeachment.

[lummy 4]

5 hours ago, yoink said:

So we're off to trial in the Senate. No real surprises there...

 

Even the fucking constitutional lawyer called by the Republicans yesterday weaseled out an answer about 'not doing impeachment this fast' rather than concentrating on the law and giving an opinion on the legality of Trump's behavior. 

 

 

For what it's worth,   Clinton's impeachment inquiry was initiated  10/8/1998, and he was impeached on 12/19/1998, a total of 75 days
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton]
Andrew Johnson's impeachment lasted a week  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson

Trump's impeachment proceedings started on Sep 24th, is currently on the 73rd day and there has not been a vote to impeach yet

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by lummy
edited url markup

[normiss 622]

I moved on him like a bitch. I didn't even ask, I just started impeaching. And when you're the Speaker of the House, they let you do it. - Pelosi, today, after Trump asked them to "do it now, fast".

[Rick 67]

16 hours ago, normiss said:

I moved on him like a bitch

just as classy as the president smh

[normiss 622]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

just as classy as the president smh

That was my point. My bad for not ending with /s

[kallend 1,623]

Trump's selective memory:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-president-donald-trump-fact-check-20191207-pklemvvm5ferhatl2en4uscwqi-story.html

[kallend 1,623]

Washington 12/7/2019 by Dana Milbank:

“The issue that we have to deal with going forward is, why the rush?” Rep. Doug Collins (Ga.), the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said this week.

“You set an incredibly short period,” Republican witness Jonathan Turley scolded at a hearing this week.

“It’s the fastest impeachment in history,” echoed House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.).

“I find it unconscionable that they have not allowed the president to defend himself on the House side,” said Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.).

“Will he be able to defend himself?” demanded Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

“He has no way to defend himself,” said Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio).

But White House counsel Pat Cipollone, in his letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler ((D-N.Y.) on Friday, undermined both complaints: The letter served as a formal answer from Trump refusing the Democrats’ invitation for him to defend himself in the House proceedings, and it instructed Democrats to hurry up.

 

“House Democrats have wasted enough of America’s time with this charade. You should end this inquiry now and not waste even more time with additional hearings,” it said, adding: "As the president has recently stated: ‘If you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast, so we can have a fair trial in the Senate, and so that our Country can get back to business.’"

[phantomII 36]

Watching from across the Atlantic, it looks like that the impeachment process finally arrived at the doors of the kangaroo court.
The verdict, according to Mitch Mcconnell, is already written.
Do you guys think you still have a functioning system or are we seeing the republicans and the president exploiting all the flaws and limitations?

[RonD1120 58]

28 minutes ago, phantomII said:

Watching from across the Atlantic, it looks like that the impeachment process finally arrived at the doors of the kangaroo court.
The verdict, according to Mitch Mcconnell, is already written.
Do you guys think you still have a functioning system or are we seeing the republicans and the president exploiting all the flaws and limitations?

I believe it is simply an indication that the Patriots are in control.

[wmw999 2,121]

43 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

I believe it is simply an indication that the Patriots are in control.

Well, they lost the week of the 1st and the 8th, and don’t look good for the Super Bowl this season

Wendy P. 

[normiss 622]

1 hour ago, RonD1120 said:

I believe it is simply an indication that the Patriots are in control.

So you, too, are wiping your ass with the Constitution and the rule of law.

You're no patriot Ron.

[Coreece 190]

29 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Well, they lost the week of the 1st and the 8th, and don’t look good for the Super Bowl this season 

That's what they always say, but some how they pull it off.  I was a hater too at one time, but Super Bowl LI made a believer out of me.

They started off pretty solid this year, but that could've been because of the weaker schedule.  The line hasn't seem to have given Brady much room to do his magic over the last several games - and without Gronk, and the double teaming of Edelman, it's going to be a bit more challenge going forward

But we've seen with our own eye what they're capable of and it'd be wise to learn a lesson and never underestimate the Patriots again!

[turtlespeed 212]

31 minutes ago, Coreece said:

That's what they always say, but some how they pull it off.  I was a hater too at one time, but Super Bowl LI made a believer out of me.

They started off pretty solid this year, but that could've been because of the weaker schedule.  The line hasn't seem to have given Brady much room to do his magic over the last several games - and without Gronk, and the double teaming of Edelman, it's going to be a bit more challenge going forward

But we've seen with our own eye what they're capable of and it'd be wise to learn a lesson and never underestimate the Patriots again!

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Well, they lost the week of the 1st and the 8th, and don’t look good for the Super Bowl this season

Wendy P. 

Gotta love how they were caught cheating again.

Apparently they needed an extra edge against the Bengals. 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

15 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Gotta love how they were caught cheating again.

How many times until something actually meaningful is done about it.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

How many times until something actually meaningful is done about it.

All of them.  Any sanctions would really be meaningless.

[Coreece 190]

21 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

21 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Gotta love how they were caught cheating again.

How many times until something actually meaningful is done about it. 

Obviously people are making a big deal out of this simply because it's the Patriots, I get it.  I just don't really see how this relatively brief video of the Bengals sideline was used to gain an advantage in this particular game.  I don't know what kind of camera they were using, but there is no indication that there was any wireless transmission to the coaching staff or anyone else.

Personally it would seem that getting away with deliberate holding or pass interference is a form of cheating that has a much higher impact on the game.  So give them a 5-15yd penalty or something, lol.

This was a third party hired by the Patriots for an ongoing series about a scout, I mean couldn't the scout or a fan or some other guy off the street easily record the sideline with their i-phone?  And if you really wanted to decode their signals you may want to get video from the front angle, not their asses.

Anyway, I don't think much will be done.  Consider Sean Peyton and his cover up of Gregg Williams and the bounty scandal where they were paying players to injury their opponents.  This is much more serious in my book, but they practically got a slap on the wrist - Williams even ended up getting promoted to a head coach before going back to defensive coordinator.

Yet Pete Rose is still banned from the MLB to this very day for personal gambling.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Obviously people are making a big deal out of this simply because it's the Patriots, I get it.  I just don't really see how this relatively brief video of the Bengals sideline was used to gain an advantage in this particular game.  I don't know what kind of camera they were using, but there is no indication that there was any wireless transmission to the coaching staff or anyone else.

Personally it would seem that getting away with deliberate holding or pass interference is a form of cheating that has a much higher impact on the game.  So give them a 5-15yd penalty or something, lol.

This was a third party hired by the Patriots for an ongoing series about a scout, I mean couldn't the scout or a fan or some other guy off the street easily record the sideline with their i-phone?  And if you really wanted to decode their signals you may want to get video from the front angle, not their asses.

Anyway, I don't think much will be done.  Consider Sean Peyton and his cover up of Gregg Williams and the bounty scandal where they were paying players to injury their opponents.  This is much more serious in my book, but they practically got a slap on the wrist - Williams even ended up getting promoted to a head coach before going back to defensive coordinator.

Yet Pete Rose is still banned from the MLB to this very day for personal gambling.

You haven't seen the video, have you?

start at 0:35 if you don't want to see the whole thing.

[Coreece 190]

5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

You haven't seen the video, have you?

Yes, I did.