Impeachment megathread Part 2

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Pelosi speaking now.  

Pure waffle except the Nadler's committee go-ahead. Is that was video conference-worthy?

Censure would have been appropriate. It's all Congress can de facto do.

You want Congress to censure the President for attempting to conspire with a foreign government to sabotage a political rival and influence our elections?

[Crumpets]

Pelosi speaking now.  

Pure waffle except the Nadler's committee go-ahead. Is that was video conference-worthy?

Censure would have been appropriate. It's all Congress can de facto do.

If Congress refuses to even try to exercise its powers, it will lose then for good. Everyone in America on both sides need to know the Democrats will fight tooth and nail to hold Trump accountable, and won't just roll over because getting everything they want would be an uphill climb.

[Gass3268]

I'm taking this as a sign that she has a majority to impeach or is very close.

[gottsu]

Pelosi speaking now.  

Pure waffle except the Nadler's committee go-ahead. Is that was video conference-worthy?

Censure would have been appropriate. It's all Congress can de facto do.

If Congress refuses to even try to exercise its powers, it will lose then for good. Everyone in America on both sides need to know the Democrats will fight tooth and nail to hold Trump accountable, and won't just roll over because getting everything they want would be an uphill climb.

You sound like some Democratic organizer or politician. Congress lost their powers in holding president accountable decades ago.

[Sir Mohamed]

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1202597122777985026

[GeorgiaModerate]

Pelosi speaking now.  

Pure waffle except the Nadler's committee go-ahead. Is that was video conference-worthy?

Censure would have been appropriate. It's all Congress can de facto do.

If Congress refuses to even try to exercise its powers, it will lose then for good. Everyone in America on both sides need to know the Democrats will fight tooth and nail to hold Trump accountable, and won't just roll over because getting everything they want would be an uphill climb.

You sound like some Democratic organizer or politician. Congress lost their powers in holding president accountable decades ago.

It's so kind of you to let us know the Constitution was amended to remove Congress's power of impeachment.  I'll bet most of us had no idea this was the case.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Pelosi speaking now.  

Pure waffle except the Nadler's committee go-ahead. Is that was video conference-worthy?

Censure would have been appropriate. It's all Congress can de facto do.

If Congress refuses to even try to exercise its powers, it will lose then for good. Everyone in America on both sides need to know the Democrats will fight tooth and nail to hold Trump accountable, and won't just roll over because getting everything they want would be an uphill climb.

You sound like some Democratic organizer or politician. Congress lost their powers in holding president accountable decades ago.

Well you heard it here, boys.  Pack it in.  We'll get 'em next time.

[gottsu]

Pelosi speaking now.  

Pure waffle except the Nadler's committee go-ahead. Is that was video conference-worthy?

Censure would have been appropriate. It's all Congress can de facto do.

If Congress refuses to even try to exercise its powers, it will lose then for good. Everyone in America on both sides need to know the Democrats will fight tooth and nail to hold Trump accountable, and won't just roll over because getting everything they want would be an uphill climb.

You sound like some Democratic organizer or politician. Congress lost their powers in holding president accountable decades ago.

It's so kind of you to let us know the Constitution was amended to remove Congress's power of impeachment.  I'll bet most of us had no idea this was the case.

You don't have to amend the Constitution - just be born as Antonin Scalia or Dick Cheney and invent "unitary executive doctrine".

[Hindsight was 2020]

Pelosi speaking now.  

Pure waffle except the Nadler's committee go-ahead. Is that was video conference-worthy?

Censure would have been appropriate. It's all Congress can de facto do.

If Congress refuses to even try to exercise its powers, it will lose then for good. Everyone in America on both sides need to know the Democrats will fight tooth and nail to hold Trump accountable, and won't just roll over because getting everything they want would be an uphill climb.

You sound like some Democratic organizer or politician. Congress lost their powers in holding president accountable decades ago.

The notion that because Bill Clinton wasn’t removed from office for lying about an affair then checks and balances are dead is so ridiculous that I have to imagine your trolling

[Person Man]

The ironic thing is that we did the constitution the way we did  to avoid the abuses of a unitary and parliamentary system and yet here they are. It’s like defending Trump losing the popular vote and it being billed as fighting the tyranny of the majority.  What is really happening is simply fighting the tyranny of the majority with outright tyranny.

That’s a pattern in general. Third wave intersectualist identity politics has turned conservatism into fascism/right-wing socialism.

[afleitch]

The ironic thing is that we did the constitution the way we did  to avoid the abuses of a unitary and parliamentary system and yet here they are. It’s like defending Trump losing the popular vote and it being billed as fighting the tyranny of the majority.  What is really happening is simply fighting the tyranny of the majority with outright tyranny.

That’s a pattern in general. Third wave intersectualist identity politics has turned conservatism into fascism.

It was conservatism all along that was fragile and identitarian. Everything from them has always been projection; they've just been good at controlling the narrative that they are the default.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Thank god McCarthy will never be Speaker.

[emailking]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1202606537342160896
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1202631185052164096

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1202606537342160896
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1202631185052164096

Oh my god I just realized. Trump tweets in olawakindi-style

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

They really don’t have anything...

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1202643861601800192

[LBJer]

I'm taking this as a sign that she has a majority to impeach or is very close.

Pelosi would NEVER have done this if she wasn't completely confident she could push impeachment through the House. 

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

It appears that a new spin on the Parnas/Giuliani phone records has cropped up: that Adam Schiff illegally subpoenaed those records and that he was on a personal vendetta against John Solomon and Devin Nunes.

Here's one of the main issues with that (among many): Parnas was the one who offered up information on his contacts with Nunes, not to mention that Solomon and Nunes were by-products of Parnas' and Giuliani's phone records.  And furthermore, if this was all a part of some massive conspiracy of a rogue chairman, you would think that there would be more production than just phone records.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Please incorporate into your thinking that there are now enough Senate seats dependent on the suburban vote/Obama to Trump vote to flip the chamber: Iowa, Georgia (2x), Arizona, and Maine. Please also note that the Senate Republican conference is painfully aware of this. Please also incorporate into your thinking that the Republican Senators are likely going to 2 way races not 3 way races unlike (possibly) Trump.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Read this is a pleasant GPS voice

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm taking this as a sign that she has a majority to impeach or is very close.

Democrats + Amash is 234, 216 are needed to impeach without any vacancies being filled before the vote. Don't see 19 votes being lost, who would be likely besides Peterson and Van Drew?

[junior chįmp]

BREAKING NEWS from clown journo land

https://mobile.twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1202432334164824064

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

BREAKING NEWS from clown journo land

https://mobile.twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1202432334164824064

But...there..weren't......any..parties....in..the...BEGGINING.

Why is Cuomo still on air?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Why is Cuomo still on air?

It's a mystery.

[GP270watch]

BREAKING NEWS from clown journo land

https://mobile.twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1202432334164824064

He really is Fredo.

[gottsu]

Pelosi speaking now.  

Pure waffle except the Nadler's committee go-ahead. Is that was video conference-worthy?

Censure would have been appropriate. It's all Congress can de facto do.

If Congress refuses to even try to exercise its powers, it will lose then for good. Everyone in America on both sides need to know the Democrats will fight tooth and nail to hold Trump accountable, and won't just roll over because getting everything they want would be an uphill climb.

You sound like some Democratic organizer or politician. Congress lost their powers in holding president accountable decades ago.

The notion that because Bill Clinton wasn’t removed from office for lying about an affair then checks and balances are dead is so ridiculous that I have to imagine your trolling

I meant the bigger picture there. The institution of impeachment is dead since Clinton, because that impeachment showed that impeachment is purely partisan and political process in which there is no room for any idealism or high-mindedness or bombastic words or deeds - it's pure, raw politics - bickering, distrust, caballing, playing on lowest human instincts possible, not the quotes of Founding Fathers.

Ken Starr showed in black and white that Clinton had affair with Lewinsky, we had her skirt with Clinton's sperm stains, and his manipulation and lies as he was saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" - and why most Democrats voted "not guilty" in Senate? Because of politics.

That is the same why Trump trial in Senate will end the same way - it'll go along party lines with maybe one or two senators from both parties breaking ranks. Also look how Congress and whole America is polarized, how bipartisanship is rare, and how in such circumstances 14 Republicans can vote "guilty" in, say, February? Just like how a dozen Democrats would have voted "guilty" 20 years ago? Impeachment became also a PR contest for both parties - it's just fighting which side will win here.

[Crumpets]

Pelosi speaking now.  

Pure waffle except the Nadler's committee go-ahead. Is that was video conference-worthy?

Censure would have been appropriate. It's all Congress can de facto do.

If Congress refuses to even try to exercise its powers, it will lose then for good. Everyone in America on both sides need to know the Democrats will fight tooth and nail to hold Trump accountable, and won't just roll over because getting everything they want would be an uphill climb.

You sound like some Democratic organizer or politician. Congress lost their powers in holding president accountable decades ago.

The notion that because Bill Clinton wasn’t removed from office for lying about an affair then checks and balances are dead is so ridiculous that I have to imagine your trolling

I meant the bigger picture there. The institution of impeachment is dead since Clinton, because that impeachment showed that impeachment is purely partisan and political process in which there is no room for any idealism or high-mindedness or bombastic words or deeds - it's pure, raw politics - bickering, distrust, caballing, playing on lowest human instincts possible, not the quotes of Founding Fathers.

Ken Starr showed in black and white that Clinton had affair with Lewinsky, we had her skirt with Clinton's sperm stains, and his manipulation and lies as he was saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" - and why most Democrats voted "not guilty" in Senate? Because of politics.

That is the same why Trump trial in Senate will end the same way - it'll go along party lines with maybe one or two senators from both parties breaking ranks. Also look how Congress and whole America is polarized, how bipartisanship is rare, and how in such circumstances 14 Republicans can vote "guilty" in, say, February? Just like how a dozen Democrats would have voted "guilty" 20 years ago? Impeachment became also a PR contest for both parties - it's just fighting which side will win here.

1. The famous "I did not have sexual relations" line, he was not under oath, and it was thus not part of the perjury inquiry. It was part of the obstruction inquiry, but that was a much less clear-cut case, as even the vote counts demonstrate. The actual perjury charges came from a 1998 deposition where he said basically the same thing, but importantly:

2) There is no legal definition for what constitutes "sexual relations." Sure most people think having a blow job means a "sexual relationship," but there was actually a debate during the impeachment proceedings as to whether "sexual relations" meant only literal intercourse. But most importantly:

3) Impeachment is not about proving that someone has committed any crime and that, if they are guilty, they are to be automatically removed. Impeachment is specifically designed to use removal from office as punishment for crimes that Congress interprets as being worthy of that punishment. The Constitution specifically gives Congress this right as the "people's branch" of government, rather than leaving it up to the courts which would decide on legal merit. Impeachment is not about precedent, or even finding a smoking gun; it's about whether "the people" and Congress by extension, think the President ought to be prematurely removed form office. The public wanted Nixon removed in 1974. The public did not want Clinton removed in 1999. The public appears to be narrolwy in support of removal now, although that may change. It's certainly a gamble to push for impeachment, but it is something that absolutely has to be seen through and not just abandoned because it would be unfair to Ken Starr after he did such diligent work 20 years ago.


Also, if the institution of impeachment is dead since 1999, what happened to Thomas Porteous?