Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Sam]

Then why have Democrats completely ignored the Mueller witch hunt and instead voted to impeach Trump over an invented crime connected to an innocuous phone call with a foreign leader? On the one hand, liberals are trying to convince us that Pelosi et al are brilliant political tacticians, but on the other hand, they're apparently complete morons for ignoring what people like you insist is an open-and-shut case for removing Trump from office.

As I mentioned to you before the last time you incredulously asked, the reporting is that numerous moderates in Trump-won districts didn't want to vote for impeachment over the Mueller Report and, perhaps more importantly, House counsel believed doing so would complicate the McGahn litigation.

House counsel informed the appellate court two days ago in McGahn oral arguments that the House and Speaker Pelosi were still actively considering articles of impeachment for the Mueller Report and it was therefore important to expedite the McGahn ruling.

And doing so set precedent for Mulvaney, Duffey, Blair and everyone else. It's the House's quickest way to "go through the courts" as y'all have been complaining they should be doing for months.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

The Mueller report lays out extensively how Trump sought to cover up those crimes by impeding the investigation.

Then why have Democrats completely ignored the Mueller witch hunt and instead voted to impeach Trump over an invented crime connected to an innocuous phone call with a foreign leader? On the one hand, liberals are trying to convince us that Pelosi et al are brilliant political tacticians, but on the other hand, they're apparently complete morons for ignoring what people like you insist is an open-and-shut case for removing Trump from office.

[JimL]

Democrats were talking about impeachment before Trump was even inaugurated!

Irrelevant!

[Mountain Man]

No, Sam ---- lemme type really slowly....

There was an ACTUAL UNDENIABLE CRIME that led to the impeachment process for Nixon. Nobody had to go to focus groups to figure out what to call it.

There was NOT an ACTUAL UNDENIABLE CRIME that led to the impeachment process for Trump. The Democrats began talking about impeachment BEFORE Trump even allegedly committed the "crime".

Democrats were talking about impeachment before Trump was even inaugurated!

[JimL]

Agreed, so your colleagues should stop using "but the PEOPLE!!!!" as an argument.



No, and neither is it implied. And only the reader or listener can "infer", so, yeah, you may have inferred something that was in no way implied.



So? The incredibly partisan Democrats, lacking an actual crime, consulted with focus groups and came up with a vague accusation.



Which goes back to the Constitution giving them absolute authority to run it as they see fit. From the Senate's website....

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" (Article I, section 3). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.

You guys, having made a royal mess of the House's part, now want to dictate how the Senate operates.

Ain't happening, bud.

The fact that the Senate has the sole power to conduct the trial doesn't mean that they can conduct a sham trial which Moscow Mitch and Lindsey Graham have openly admitted to being their intent. The law also requires the trial to be fair and impartial and they need take an oath to the effect.

[Cow Poke]

Public opinion about impeachment remains split along party lines, but this is irrelevant re the guilt or innocence of Trump

Agreed, so your colleagues should stop using "but the PEOPLE!!!!" as an argument.

Yes, it interfered.

No, and neither is it implied. And only the reader or listener can "infer", so, yeah, you may have inferred something that was in no way implied.

The Senate and WH stonewalled the House inquiry and withheld key documents and witnesses, which has resulted in the second article of impeachment namely, Obstruction of Congress.

So? The incredibly partisan Democrats, lacking an actual crime, consulted with focus groups and came up with a vague accusation.

What’s being questioned is not the authority to run the trial but the Senate leaders publicly abrogating their duty to run a fair, impartial trial as the Constitution demands.

Which goes back to the Constitution giving them absolute authority to run it as they see fit. From the Senate's website....

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" (Article I, section 3). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.

You guys, having made a royal mess of the House's part, now want to dictate how the Senate operates.

Ain't happening, bud.

[Tassman]

--- in spite of the Democrats supposedly putting on a smoking-gun case, and the media hammering this 24-7, it hasn't moved the needle much at all.

Public opinion about impeachment remains split along party lines, but this is irrelevant re the guilt or innocence of Trump

Tassy ---- the incredibly partisan Democrats ran their portion of this in the House without the Senate interfering.

Yes, it interfered. The Senate and WH stonewalled the House inquiry and withheld key documents and witnesses, which has resulted in the second article of impeachment namely, Obstruction of Congress.

The House has absolute authority over the first part of the impeachment process, and the Senate has absolute authority over their part.

What’s being questioned is not the authority to run the trial but the Senate leaders publicly abrogating their duty to run a fair, impartial trial as the Constitution demands.

[Sam]

I'm probably wasting my time, but I'll try this ONE MORE TIME....

With Nixon, there actually was an UNDENIABLE CRIME that got the ball rolling. Then there was the coverup, which led to the impeachment. But had there been no crime - no coverup, no impeachment.
With Trump, they pretty much had to invent a crime -- and you guys tried the grand Russian Collusion Delusion, and when that didn't fly, it all turned to the Ukraine thing, and all kinds of attempts to figure out "what can we get this guy on and make it stick".

It would have been FAR easier if there had been an actual undeniable crime that led to the Trump impeachment, rather than this exhaustive fishing expedition.

Now, my dear sweet wife wants me to come to bed, and I love her FAR more than I love you, so....

BYE!

For tomorrow, then:

• Mueller found numerous crimes by Trump associates.
• Mueller reported that Trump attempted to cover up at least some of that criminal activity by obstructing the investigation, finding numerous obstructive acts that meet the criminal criteria for obstruction of justice.
• Those Trump associates were found guilty by juries, as with the Watergate burglars.

So are you not setting a standard with Nixon ("ACTUAL CRIME" leads to "COVER UP" that justifies "IMPEACHMENT") that applies to Trump, as well?

And, if so, why is Republican response to Trump now different than what you say Republican response to Nixon was then?

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

The point isn't to win; the point is to come to understanding using agreed-upon principles.

So if you think your principle with Nixon's impeachment logically applies to Trump, why not say so?

--Sam

I'm probably wasting my time, but I'll try this ONE MORE TIME....

With Nixon, there actually was an UNDENIABLE CRIME that got the ball rolling. Then there was the coverup, which led to the impeachment. But had there been no crime - no coverup, no impeachment.
With Trump, they pretty much had to invent a crime -- and you guys tried the grand Russian Collusion Delusion, and when that didn't fly, it all turned to the Ukraine thing, and all kinds of attempts to figure out "what can we get this guy on and make it stick".

It would have been FAR easier if there had been an actual undeniable crime that led to the Trump impeachment, rather than this exhaustive fishing expedition.

Now, my dear sweet wife wants me to come to bed, and I love her FAR more than I love you, so....

BYE!

[JimL]

You're being incredibly obtuse, Sam. If there was no crime, there would be no cover up. And I believe that's where we popularized the saying "the coverup is worse than the crime". But absent a crime, there can be no coverup.

Basic logic

.
So, you're arguing that it's okay for the president to cover up alleged crimes, that it's only known actual crimes that he can't cover up? That's your basic logic?

HOWEVER, this looks like one of those things on which you absolutely positively have to win, so I'll give you the win. GREAT job!

You can have the last word.

But he absolutely did win, CP, which of course is the only reason you're sarcastically and ungracefully ceding it to him.

[Sam]

You won, Sam. Take your victory lap. Discussions with you are FAR too tedious.

The point isn't to win; the point is to come to understanding using agreed-upon principles.

So if you think your principle with Nixon's impeachment logically applies to Trump, why not say so?

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

So you are not going to apply the Nixon standard of Actual Crime -> Cover Up to the Mueller investigation?

Not going to try to explain what the difference is?

You won, Sam. Take your victory lap. Discussions with you are FAR too tedious.

[Sam]

You're being incredibly obtuse, Sam. If there was no crime, there would be no cover up. And I believe that's where we popularized the saying "the coverup is worse than the crime". But absent a crime, there can be no coverup.

Basic logic.

HOWEVER, this looks like one of those things on which you absolutely positively have to win, so I'll give you the win. GREAT job!

You can have the last word.

So you are not going to apply the Nixon standard of Actual Crime -> Cover Up to the Mueller investigation?

Not going to try to explain what the difference is?

[Cow Poke]

What started the whole Nixon impeachment thing was not the Watergate burglary. It was the suggestion and evidence that Nixon had abused his power by attempting to cover up that crime.

You're being incredibly obtuse, Sam. If there was no crime, there would be no cover up. And I believe that's where we popularized the saying "the coverup is worse than the crime". But absent a crime, there can be no coverup.

Basic logic.

HOWEVER, this looks like one of those things on which you absolutely positively have to win, so I'll give you the win. GREAT job!

You can have the last word.

[Sam]

Nor did I ever claim he was. But it's what started the whole Nixon impeachment thing.

What started the whole Nixon impeachment thing was not the Watergate burglary. It was the suggestion and evidence that Nixon had abused his power by attempting to cover up that crime.

So, let's ask it this way: We know that Trump associates and campaign officials committed crimes. The Mueller report lays out extensively how Trump sought to cover up those crimes by impeding the investigation.

Are you arguing now that impeachment regarding the Mueller investigation cover ups is warranted because there are underlying criminal convictions and evidence of a cover up? Is that the standard you're trying to apply here?

--Sam