Impeachment Megathread Part 3

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The Rules have passed on a vote of 53-47. Arguments by the House to begin tomorrow.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Given the outcome, why didn't they just group all the amendments together into a mega-amendment and get them all denied in one vote?

It's a bit monotonous.

[Calthrina950]

Given the outcome, why didn't they just group all the amendments together into a mega-amendment and get them all denied in one vote?

It's a bit monotonous.

I don't understand it either. I assume that it was a deliberate gesture, intended to cast light on the unfairness of the proceedings (as the Democrats see it), and to apply additional pressure on the Republicans. At any rate, Collins was the only Republican to defect, and she did so on only one of the amendments. Noticeably enough, both Manchin and Sinema voted with their caucus for Schumer's amendments. Perhaps this provides us with an indication of how they will vote at the end of the trial. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is acquitted on a completely party-line vote.

[Sir Mohamed]

This so called trial is a shame and unworthy of the "most deliberative body". Since Mr. Trump was not convicted anyway, an unfair process may hurt GOPers because almost 7 in 10 Americans want witnesses to testify.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Alright. Day 1 assessment of the Impeachment of Donald Trump on Australia's news.com.au website from keen observers:

Greg said "CNN and Pelosi's entire job is to try and bring down Trump. That is all they do."

Tom Roberts said "This is the end of the Democrats for some time. They have let the crazies take over their party."

Ivan said "Impeachment seems pretty much doomed from the start."

Shane said "What is the point of all this if no one has to testify? Waste of time. I do not like Trump, but he is working the system in his favour. The only way to get rid of him is for American people to get off their butt and actually go and vote, instead of sitting back and praying he doesn't win. They have to go and vote."

Bobbysac said: "This is so crazy. I can understand not liking a President like Trump but the non stop articles, Russian Probe? bias media and unwillingness to rely on democracy to do its job just makes the Democratic Party look utterly weak, desperate and pathetic. I hope Australia never gets this way."

Tom said "Lucky for Trump he’s dealing with this crop of rocket scientists who somehow think the accused is ment to show up with the prosecutions brief , you can’t help starting to pity his competition how embarrassing to be them."

Anthony said "Just cement(ed) the 2020 election even more."

Mo said "He should take a page out of Hilary's book and wait until he is subpoenaed and then delete 33,000 of them."

to which Pat-VG replied "... and bleach bit his hard drives. If Trump doesn’t know how to do that Hillary can show him."

Cynic said "Everything they do makes the Democrats look weaker. This impeachment will be their death knell for 2020. I don't even know who is running for the Democrats except one old man who should hav been their man 12 years ago if they had had any sense!"

Ged Blogs said "The idea of having a trial is that all the evidence is collected beforehand by investigators, not during the trial. The Dems went in with "We know he's guilty. We can't prove it but we know he is." No criminal trial runs on faith alone. The Dems have not provided a shred of evidence and refused to consider allowing either Hunter or Joe to be called as witnesses. The Dems have nothing and the Republicans know that."

Michael finished with "Only In America"

It was about 95% against the Democrats strategy. But I would not have called it 95% pro-Trump.

This is starting to look like a bad political move for the Democrats going forward.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Alright. Day 1 assessment of the Impeachment of Donald Trump on Australia's news.com.au website from keen observers:
...
This is starting to look like a bad political move for the Democrats going forward.

Yes, they'll probably do terribly in the next Australian election.

[Hollywood]

Frivolous.  That pretty much sums it up.  The Democrats simply do not have a well-established basis for impeaching the President, and their arbitrary application of the impeachment process is akin to prosecutorial overreach in criminal cases. 

They are fabricating an impeachable offense out of a legitimate constitutional question regarding whether the executive branches exclusive domain over foreign affairs puts a limit on the legislative branches power to control money that they’ve authorized to go to foreign nations.  The Democrats claim that Trump is violating a 1972 law that limits the power of the President to line-item-veto bills, but that is only true if the constitutional question is answered.  However, we can never really get to that question, because the Democrats violated that same law and the Constitution when they failed to exhaust all remedies provided under the law before initiating impeachment. 

Not that it even matters.  Nobody in the country knows what charges are contained in the articles of impeachment, nor would 99% of them understand the legalese.  It’s pretty new.  Like real new.  Like liberal law reviews and articles just came out with these new interpretations within the last year for the sole purpose of making some BS argument to impeach the President.   

Obstruction of congress?  Come on.  That’s a joke.  I’ve heard of contempt of congress, but “obstruction of congress”?  If this were actual court, 100% the attorney that tried to argue “obstruction of congress” is subject to loss of licensure by the BAR for misleading the court.  That’s just fact. 

[wbrocks67]

Frivolous.  That pretty much sums it up.  The Democrats simply do not have a well-established basis for impeaching the President, and their arbitrary application of the impeachment process is akin to prosecutorial overreach in criminal cases. 

They are fabricating an impeachable offense out of a legitimate constitutional question regarding whether the executive branches exclusive domain over foreign affairs puts a limit on the legislative branches power to control money that they’ve authorized to go to foreign nations.  The Democrats claim that Trump is violating a 1972 law that limits the power of the President to line-item-veto bills, but that is only true if the constitutional question is answered.  However, we can never really get to that question, because the Democrats violated that same law and the Constitution when they failed to exhaust all remedies provided under the law before initiating impeachment. 

Not that it even matters.  Nobody in the country knows what charges are contained in the articles of impeachment, nor would 99% of them understand the legalese.  It’s pretty new.  Like real new.  Like liberal law reviews and articles just came out with these new interpretations within the last year for the sole purpose of making some BS argument to impeach the President.   

Obstruction of congress?  Come on.  That’s a joke.  I’ve heard of contempt of congress, but “obstruction of congress”?  If this were actual court, 100% the attorney that tried to argue “obstruction of congress” is subject to loss of licensure by the BAR for misleading the court.  That’s just fact. 

You are trying incredibly hard here. Stop. Trump broke the law, abused his office, and obstructed congress at every turn. The ones who were being ridiculous yesterday were the Republicans, who absolutely straight out lied at every turn.

[Hollywood]

Frivolous.  That pretty much sums it up.  The Democrats simply do not have a well-established basis for impeaching the President, and their arbitrary application of the impeachment process is akin to prosecutorial overreach in criminal cases. 

They are fabricating an impeachable offense out of a legitimate constitutional question regarding whether the executive branches exclusive domain over foreign affairs puts a limit on the legislative branches power to control money that they’ve authorized to go to foreign nations.  The Democrats claim that Trump is violating a 1972 law that limits the power of the President to line-item-veto bills, but that is only true if the constitutional question is answered.  However, we can never really get to that question, because the Democrats violated that same law and the Constitution when they failed to exhaust all remedies provided under the law before initiating impeachment. 

Not that it even matters.  Nobody in the country knows what charges are contained in the articles of impeachment, nor would 99% of them understand the legalese.  It’s pretty new.  Like real new.  Like liberal law reviews and articles just came out with these new interpretations within the last year for the sole purpose of making some BS argument to impeach the President.   

Obstruction of congress?  Come on.  That’s a joke.  I’ve heard of contempt of congress, but “obstruction of congress”?  If this were actual court, 100% the attorney that tried to argue “obstruction of congress” is subject to loss of licensure by the BAR for misleading the court.  That’s just fact. 

You are trying incredibly hard here. Stop. Trump broke the law, abused his office, and obstructed congress at every turn. The ones who were being ridiculous yesterday were the Republicans, who absolutely straight out lied at every turn.

I'm not even trying. The Democrats are merely accusing him of a constitutional violation that's reiterated in 1972 statute.  Its a totally debatable constitutional issue. 

The Republicans are liars... yeah yeah yeah.  As if the Democrats don't lie every second of every day. 

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Frivolous.  That pretty much sums it up.  The Democrats simply do not have a well-established basis for impeaching the President, and their arbitrary application of the impeachment process is akin to prosecutorial overreach in criminal cases. 

They are fabricating an impeachable offense out of a legitimate constitutional question regarding whether the executive branches exclusive domain over foreign affairs puts a limit on the legislative branches power to control money that they’ve authorized to go to foreign nations.  The Democrats claim that Trump is violating a 1972 law that limits the power of the President to line-item-veto bills, but that is only true if the constitutional question is answered.  However, we can never really get to that question, because the Democrats violated that same law and the Constitution when they failed to exhaust all remedies provided under the law before initiating impeachment. 

Not that it even matters.  Nobody in the country knows what charges are contained in the articles of impeachment, nor would 99% of them understand the legalese.  It’s pretty new.  Like real new.  Like liberal law reviews and articles just came out with these new interpretations within the last year for the sole purpose of making some BS argument to impeach the President.   

Obstruction of congress?  Come on.  That’s a joke.  I’ve heard of contempt of congress, but “obstruction of congress”?  If this were actual court, 100% the attorney that tried to argue “obstruction of congress” is subject to loss of licensure by the BAR for misleading the court.  That’s just fact. 

You are trying incredibly hard here. Stop. Trump broke the law, abused his office, and obstructed congress at every turn. The ones who were being ridiculous yesterday were the Republicans, who absolutely straight out lied at every turn.

I'm not even trying. The Democrats are merely accusing him of a constitutional violation that's reiterated in 1972 statute.  Its a totally debatable constitutional issue. 

The Republicans are liars... yeah yeah yeah.  As if the Democrats don't lie every second of every day. 

Insert "both sides" peace-keeping post here.

[Queen Isuelt]

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp-video/mmvo77260357805?__twitter_impression=true

Klobuchar said on MSNBC that republicans are looking down at their shoes embarrassed with how they are voting. The republicans have broken their oath of office so why be here and serve your country if they can’t be bothered to defend the constitution.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1219981403120644103

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1219981403120644103

*Eye.  Roll.*

[Middle-aged Europe]

https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1219981403120644103

Obstruction of justice then.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Putting on my MAGA hat here for just a moment (yes, I have actually do have one. No, don't ask me why):

What I think he means is that "we (the defense) has substance, they (the House Managers) don't", not necessarily that "we have all of these incriminating documents that we don't want to them to have."  To my untrained ear, it's just Trump doing that thing where he just tries to fill the air with the sound of his own voice by putting words together.  

It's great, nobody's saying it's not great.  In fact, I'd say it's fantastic, just fantastic, just wonderful, an amazing thing.  There's nobody--and I'd even say that it's the best.  Just the best

But maybe I'm just trying my best to salvage SOMETHING from Donald J. Trump.  Would I put it past him to outright brag about withholding documents and other materials?

Not.  At.  All.  

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/djrothkopf/status/1219737315658149888

The entire Republican Party is in the process of voting to break their oaths of office, and to support the destruction of the United States Constitution. There is no coming back from this. The entire party is complicit, from Roberts and Trump, through the whining, moderates, down the the most recently registered Republican voter.

This is not, alas, surprising, but it is a final and irrevocable declaration of war against the United States. Going forward, we can have a free and democratic nation, or we can have a Republican Party - it is clear we cannot continue to have both.

[Frodo]

I think we should all just come to terms with the fact that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking impeachment off the table for future presidents, removing one more check on the power of the President.  If what Trump has done isn't impeachable, then nothing is.  And that will be the lesson future presidents will learn going forward. 

[The Dowager Mod]

Checks and balances?
We don't need no stinking checks and balances!

[Hindsight was 2020]

I think we should all just come to terms with the fact that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking impeachment off the table for future presidents, removing one more check on the power of the President.  If what Trump has done isn't impeachable, then nothing is.  And that will be the lesson future presidents will learn going forward. 

Oh no a presi(D)ent can still be impeached but a p(R)esident can’t

[Frodo]

I think we should all just come to terms with the fact that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking impeachment off the table for future presidents, removing one more check on the power of the President.  If what Trump has done isn't impeachable, then nothing is.  And that will be the lesson future presidents will learn going forward. 

Oh no a presi(D)ent can still be impeached but a p(R)esident can’t

No, Trump has set precedents that future presidents will follow, and that their respective parties will ensure will endure, labeling (not unreasonably) any objections by the opposition as self-interested hypocrisy. 

[Hindsight was 2020]

The most frustrating part is that they’ll justify all this nonsense on the grounds that the house was a show trial but it wasn’t. Republicans actually got witnesses like Sondland and Volker just because they didn’t get to call their troll requests like Hunter or the WB doesn’t mean they got shut out of the process. And honestly the media deserves some blame because they’re so afraid of giving ammunition to the “MSM works for democrats” talking points that they aren’t calling out the republicans for the bad faith actors they are

[emailking]

He's retweeted like 40 or 50 times this morning. I don't think it's very effective, I just start skimming through them because it's all the same stuff.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Putting on my MAGA hat here for just a moment (yes, I have actually do have one. No, don't ask me why):

What I think he means is that "we (the defense) has substance, they (the House Managers) don't", not necessarily that "we have all of these incriminating documents that we don't want to them to have."  To my untrained ear, it's just Trump doing that thing where he just tries to fill the air with the sound of his own voice by putting words together.  

Nope. Thanks for playing, but the entire 21st Century's quota of "what he really meant was" has already been used up and there is no more available. When Benedict Donald incriminates himself, in public, again, it stands of its own.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/weareoversight/status/1219852782133444609

[emailking]

I agree with her on that. You think he's going insane and won't be able to take the stage by year's end. Ham handed statements like these would be expected.