Trump impeached

tulc said:

The OP said he has...
tulc(is starting to get some idea what Kenny'sID point is, it's not been sent up to the Senate yet?)

Click to expand...

Ah, I see, because someone said so. Spoken like a true democrat. I suppose that's as good a reason as any to report it as a matter of fact.

I think you understand enough now to figure out the rest over time.

tulc said:

The OP said he has...
tulc(is starting to get some idea what Kenny'sID point is, it's not been sent up to the Senate yet?)

Click to expand...

Some folks in Donald's base have pinned their hopes on an opinion piece that Donald wasn't for-real for-real impeached until Pelosi sends the Articles to the Senate. The Senate which is on recess for the holidays. Donald received more votes for his impeachment than any other president in US history. The law professor's own colleagues called that opinion that he wasn't really impeached "textually bizarre, historically inaccurate, structurally misguided and functionally misleading." But it's what Donald's base wants to believe. And it's Christmas, so let them? Lol.

Seeing as how Mitch bragged on camera about how he was in cahoots with Donald, was going to do everything he could to just not bother to actually fulfill his duty, Pelosi is smart to hold up the Articles as leverage to get Mitch to honor his oath. They will eventually be sent to the Senate. A gal on here I follow on Twitter actually laid it all out on the night of the impeachment. Laid out how it had been the plan folks at Stanford had already predicted on account of Mitch having made it so dang predictable. Also Democrats had shown a picture of the huge stack of bills that the House passed and sent to the Senate where it's just sat on their desk, which had been a clue that they were wanting to see the Senate get up off their tails.

tulc said:

...how else does someone get impeached? they take a vote, and unlike the election, a majority of people in the House voted to impeach. 230-197. when the votes were counted someone stood up and said President Trump was impeached
Trump impeached by the House for abuse of power, obstruction of Congress
I know the new Republican talking point is: "He's not impeached until it's sent up to the Senate!" But that one of those "I'm clutching at any sort of straw I can to try and pretend to the base that it's all under control!!"


You mean because he has been impeached, we all say "He's been impeached."? Yeah, it's kind of weird how we do stuff like that. We tend to just go by actual facts, not wishful thinking. I know it's silly, but that's how we are.


I thought I'd missed something today (I was tied up off and on all day with other stuff and thought you'd seen something I'd missed) turns out it was just one of those "You Democrats and your facts and stuff!" things you guys like to do.
tulc(thanks Kenny'sID for explaining!)

Click to expand...

And kenny'sID thanks tulc for letting him know, no, tulk still doesn't get it. And that he mistakenly saw others clutching straws when they were in his own hands all along.

......................................................................

Kenny'sID said:

And kenny'sID thanks tulc for letting him know, no, tulk still doesn't get it. And that he mistakenly saw others clutching straws when they were in his own hands all along.

......................................................................

Click to expand...

He has been impeached.

I don't get what you're suggesting. Is it that you think he hasn't been impeached because he hasn't been convicted?

There's the impeachment, which has already happened. Done deal.

Later, when the articles are sent to the Senate, he could be convicted.

tulc said:

uhmmm...that wouldn't be the Democrats, that would be the Supreme Court said abortion laws were against the Constitution and it would have been during a Republican Presidents term in office.
tulc(in case the facts were of any importance)

Click to expand...

Sure the facts are important, since it was not really conservatives who pushed for these laws ,but mainly left leaning liberals otherwise they would not be defending it. Republicans were never originally for abortion. There is currently a debate however among some about whether is ok when a woman's life is in danger. The democrats currently support it across the board. Can you point to any democrat who has not supported in recent years, should be rare if any?

President Nixon and his administration was definitely not pro-abortion so you can count that one out.

tulc said:

...or I did.

To be fair, since you can't seem to explain why you don't believe he's been impeached, (well...other then the ever successful "nah uh!" defense) I'm going to go with what the House announced, the news posted and what every other person in the United States (except for President Trump and those who apparently believe him over reality) knows to be true: President Trump is indeed indicted, and he now knows his place in the history books is secured by that asterisk next to his name with the foot note: "one of three sitting Presidents indicted by congress".
tulc(is off to do dishes for a couple hundred friends and family)
O.

Click to expand...

I looked onto it and yes, he's been impeached.

Maybe it's just me but impeachment seems to mean nothing more than accusations, something the dems have been doing since the election. It doesn't mean he's done a thing. What an overrated term, when unless it's turned over to the senate, it's a waste of time and money. Seriously, I thought it meant something, the reason for the confusion.

I've noticed even the dem side of this calming down substantially here, as if, even they know it's nothing, or at the very best nothing more than has been done all along. But at the same time, I understand how there are a few hard cores with need to keep the ball rolling, so don't mind me, Tulk needs to get back to his business at hand, on keeping the flow to a more steady pace.

Kenny'sID said:

I looked onto it and yes, he's been impeached.

Maybe it's just me but impeachment seems to mean nothing more than accusations, something the dems have been doing since the election. It doesn't mean he's done a thing. What an overrated term, when unless it's turned over to the senate, it's a waste of time and money. Seriously, I thought it meant something, the reason for the confusion.

I've noticed even the dem side of this calming down substantially here, as if, even they know it's nothing, or at the very best nothing more than has been done all along. But at the same time, I understand how there are a few hard cores with need to keep the ball rolling, so don't mind me, Tulk needs to get back to his business at hand, on keeping the flow to a more steady pace.

Click to expand...

When Clinton was impeached, it was considered to mean a lot and was considered worth doing even thought the Senate wasn't going to convict him. I don't mean you personally considered it worthwhile, but that is worth noting.

Impeachment is, in effect, a set of charges formally brought against a sitting president. That this has only happened three times, ever, means it's fairly significant.

I agree with you that there was a lot of hot air regarding Russia, however. If there's proof of that or evidence, I would like to see it.

That said, it's not meaningless that this has happened. The president is now in the delightful company of Johnson and Clinton. And Nixon, in the sense that his own party told him he was about to be impeached and convicted, and he should just resign.

archer75 said:

Impeachment is, in effect, a set of charges formally brought against a sitting president. That this has only happened three times, ever, means it's fairly significant.

Click to expand...

archer75 said:

That said, it's not meaningless that this has happened.

Click to expand...

I understand your view, but there is the huge "Out to get him" factor here that both sides have to know has existed since the election, making it others view that it is pretty much meaningless, and very clear why it happened.

Meaningless? we may or may not find out...actually we will, if it's not passed to the senate, we find out it was business as usual and something of a joke, and if they do, probably the same, although there will be some chance it could amount to something.

Go Braves said:

Seeing as how Mitch bragged on camera about how he was in cahoots with Donald, was going to do everything he could to just not bother to actually fulfill his duty, Pelosi is smart to hold up the Articles as leverage to get Mitch to honor his oath. They will eventually be sent to the Senate. A gal on here I follow on Twitter actually laid it all out on the night of the impeachment. Laid out how it had been the plan folks at Stanford had already predicted on account of Mitch having made it so dang predictable. Also Democrats had shown a picture of the huge stack of bills that the House passed and sent to the Senate where it's just sat on their desk, which had been a clue that they were wanting to see the Senate get up off their tails.

Click to expand...

It's sad that people have to rely on some gal on Twitter. They couldn't figure this out for themselves? It hasn't been that hard to figure out.

I also don't see where this leverage is coming in. Trump is impeached, but the process isn't finished until the trial. The house was forgone conclusion for impeachment, and the senate is going to be the same except in the opposite direction. It didn't take a bunch of Stanford folks to see that coming. Anyone truly paying any attention saw it.

It's been pretty obvious for months now. We haven't seen impartiality since before their administration started. Nancy has no leverage here, and Trump can't be that much of a risk to national security, safety and all the rest if she wants to sit on them. I think she is hoping for more items drop so she can add to articles. Which kind of tells you it wasn't such a huge need for a rush.

From what I have read Mitch said they will take the same approach as they took for Clinton. I gather the House doesn't like that, and wants them to finish the job for witnesses and documents that the house didn't bother with. Relying on another chamber to do the job that you wouldn't do doesn't look to good.

We also already have been told about the next set of talking points. He has already cheated on the next election, and we plan on impeaching him as many times as it takes. They have been hinting at these for a while, and will blown them up bigger as time goes on. We shouldn't need twitter opinions or Stanford folks to see that either.

This whole thing is a mess.

I found this interesting:

tulc said:

Ahhh! the classic: "I'm rubber you're glue, bounce off me me stick to you!" defense! I remember it working so well in grade school that I can't see how it could possible fail in this situation!
tulc(is having a great Christmas)

Click to expand...

Cheers!

Defense? What exactly do you think I need to defend. lol

A couple more I found interesting, and if it weren't so sad what was gong on, almost entertaining:

Kenny'sID said:

I understand your view, but there is the huge "Out to get him" factor here that both sides have to know has existed since the election, making it others view that it is pretty much meaningless, and very clear why it happened.

Meaningless? we may or may not find out...actually we will, if it's not passed to the senate, we find out it was business as usual and something of a joke, and if they do, probably the same, although there will be some chance it could amount to something.

Click to expand...

There was a similar, "official" policy with Obama from the start. But that isn't usually considered relevant in these discussions.

I agree that there is a significant degree of silliness. I also think the reasons given in the articles were bad, though there were plenty of good ones available. For the record, I do think Trump should be removed from office. But that doesn't mean that this was the best idea. We'll see where it goes. I don't expect much.

tulc said:

Man, some Republicans do seem to like to wag their fingers a lot.
tulc(suspects that may be a "tell" some of them have when they can't support their point)

Click to expand...

I think you missed my question, and are changing the subject.Support what point? I thought we were past that....no longer anything to support. But when you need a comback I suppose anything will do.

And not sure why a Democrat would even think about accusing others of wagging their finger to much, not at this point in time, or actually any point in time since the election..