45th President of the United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 7)

[Tallow]

hidetheelephants said:

What's to stop any future democrat government with majorities in both houses enacting term limits and a bunch of other restrictions on judicial appointments(requiring approval of ABA etc), and the same with law against voter suppression/gerrymandering?

Well, quite. I've asked pro-Trump people this very question before and they pretty much always deflect with some kind of generic whataboutism or generic inaccurate and irrelevant talking point of the day. When I've tried to point out what a dangerous precedent all of this is, it falls on deaf ears.

It could be that the cat is out of the bag now, so who knows what will come after all this.

[Tallow]

Down and out said:

Interesting. Place your bets, my money's on the one who doesn't proclaim 100%.

You honestly think that the majority Democrat House won't vote to impeach him later? I admire your optimism.... Irrespective of one's position on Trump, it surely must be a virtual certainty that the impeachment part will happen even if the senate conviction doesn't follow (which it won't).

Unless you're trolling of course... <checks username> Ah, yes, that'll do it.

[Gameface]

What time is the vote today? UK time.

[FN2TypeR]

Gameface said:

What time is the vote today? UK time.

18:30 - 19:30 Eastern Time is the ballpark figure that the guardian were trotting out which is 23:30 - 00:30 UK time

[Gameface]

Thanks.

It's a shame Trump doesn't have to attend so we could see him squirm and then lose his temper as the votes come in.

[ZeroGroundZero]

Please correct if wrong, the process so far and from the evidence given, is it the case that Trump has not actually done anything illegal? The only charge being placed by the Dems is that he "tried" to do something illegal?

[kowalski655]

Prolex-UK said:

Lets hope the retiring senators vote against him

And actually grow a spine? No chance! Even retiring they gave their beady little eyes on directorships, consulting gigs, lobbying,or talking BS on Fox.
It would take just 3 to vote for a secret ballot, and that would allow more to vote with a conscience,rather than pandering to the base, but it won't happen.
The GOP want to stick with Trump so another term will get a Supreme or even two,and pack SCOTUS with hard liners for decades

[Tallow]

ZeroGroundZero said:

Please correct if wrong, the process so far and from the evidence given, is it the case that Trump has not actually done anything illegal? The only charge being placed by the Dems is that he "tried" to do something illegal?

I guess that depends on your definition. He attempted to essentially force Ukraine to perform a sham investigation into his rival by withholding aid, which his team have basically admitted.

So "trying" to do something could be one way of looking at it (in as much as the whilstleblower coming forward forced them to release the aid), but one could (and IMO should) view it that this isn't really a legitimate excuse. It's like acquitting someone being tried for attempted murder because their victim survived. Doesn't make the action legal.

HTH.

[ZeroGroundZero]

Tallow said:

ZeroGroundZero said:

Please correct if wrong, the process so far and from the evidence given, is it the case that Trump has not actually done anything illegal? The only charge being placed by the Dems is that he "tried" to do something illegal?

I guess that depends on your definition. He attempted to essentially force Ukraine to perform a sham investigation into his rival by withholding aid, which his team have basically admitted.

So "trying" to do something could be one way of looking at it (in as much as the whilstleblower coming forward forced them to release the aid), but one could (and IMO should) view it that this isn't really a legitimate excuse. It's like acquitting someone being tried for attempted murder because their victim survived. Doesn't make the action legal.

HTH.

Was just watching the news and they were describing "impeachment" as something that had no real definition, with it being a term that can be described as each person sees fit.
The Dems using it in this case as a political tool to claim that Trump has abused his power, although no illegality has taken place in law.

I can see your comparison with the "attempted murder" parallel, but I get the impression that its purely partisan and the process itself has possibly been misused by the Dem if no illegality has taken place.

To be fair, as mentioned in a previously reply on this thread, I've not been following the whole thing, just picking up bits and pieces over the past few weeks.

[Blackpuddin]

Fascinating video insight into the 'Trump effect' on the ground in the USA. Only one person in this film has a considered view. The others appear to be perfectly happy to regurgitate Trump propaganda.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-50...

[Tallow]

Partisan or not (and FWIW I'm pretty convinced that if the tables were turned, that the Republicans would be doing the same) the purpose of impeachment as I understand it is to censure a public official for committing actions that call their position into disrepute.

Not only is that definitely the case if one tries to blackmail a foreign leader into involving themselves in domestic election politics (something, incidentally, that isn't dispute outside of entirely partisan positions), but he's done plenty of other actions that could potentially be impeachable, too.

As I've mentioned upthread, the real issue is the precedent that is set with this. If he isn't impeached then it becomes carte blanche for any future president to basically do whatever they want, and that ain't good.

I try to stay as politically agnostic as possible but from the evidence I've seen and read there's no evidence that Trump does anything but hold the law and responsibility of public position in nothing but utter disregard. I say that not as a Democrat leaning person - I'd consider myself an independent if anything (admittedly I'm not a citizen so I can't vote, but still)

[Challo]

ZeroGroundZero said:

Tallow said:

ZeroGroundZero said:

Please correct if wrong, the process so far and from the evidence given, is it the case that Trump has not actually done anything illegal? The only charge being placed by the Dems is that he "tried" to do something illegal?

I guess that depends on your definition. He attempted to essentially force Ukraine to perform a sham investigation into his rival by withholding aid, which his team have basically admitted.

So "trying" to do something could be one way of looking at it (in as much as the whilstleblower coming forward forced them to release the aid), but one could (and IMO should) view it that this isn't really a legitimate excuse. It's like acquitting someone being tried for attempted murder because their victim survived. Doesn't make the action legal.

HTH.

Was just watching the news and they were describing "impeachment" as something that had no real definition, with it being a term that can be described as each person sees fit.
The Dems using it in this case as a political tool to claim that Trump has abused his power, although no illegality has taken place in law.

I can see your comparison with the "attempted murder" parallel, but I get the impression that its purely partisan and the process itself has possibly been misused by the Dem if no illegality has taken place.

To be fair, as mentioned in a previously reply on this thread, I've not been following the whole thing, just picking up bits and pieces over the past few weeks.

It doesn't need to be a crime in the criminal sense to be impeached. He is abusing the power of the office, and obstructing the process by refusing to provide documentation to the house for investigations and forcing people to defies subpoena's.

Also its the oath of the office, and obeying the constitution. There are supposed to be 3 equal branches of government - House, President, Senate and Trump is basically deciding that as president he can do what he wants.

[Blackpuddin]

FN2TypeR said:

Gameface said:

What time is the vote today? UK time.

18:30 - 19:30 Eastern Time is the ballpark figure that the guardian were trotting out which is 23:30 - 00:30 UK time

The 'debate' and I use that word loosely is live now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVUyL8G2kTY

[Blackpuddin]

15 minute electronic vote now happening. No swing votes as yet.

[MXRod]

Blackpuddin said:

The 'debate' and I use that word loosely is live now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVUyL8G2kTY

Also BBC parliament channel 232

[paulguitar]

Down and out said:

Interesting. Place your bets, my money's on the one who doesn't proclaim 100%.

Do you understand the process, D&O?

It's the next step where trump has the majority, in the Senate.

[Blackpuddin]

There may not be a next step if this carries on, 2 Dems have voted with the GOP

[paulguitar]

ZeroGroundZero said:

Please correct if wrong, the process so far and from the evidence given, is it the case that Trump has not actually done anything illegal? The only charge being placed by the Dems is that he "tried" to do something illegal?

That I suppose would be like saying you've done no wrong if you go into a bank and threaten the teller with a gun, but they call the police and so you have leave empty-handed. You are not exactly 'innocent'!

trump’s run of batst lunacy started on day one when he wheeled out his press secretary to brazenly lie in front of the world about the size of his inauguration crowd. That’s how his ‘presidency' started.

What’s staggering to see now is how successful the mountain of wrongdoing he has engaged in ever since has been in making some people doubt his bahaviour with the Ukraine situation could in any way not be considered impeachable conduct.

Basically, his wrongdoing has been so relentless and consistent, people are overwhelmed. I mean, who even remembers/mentions these days the campaign fund violations and endless lying regarding paying off pornstars? He should have been gone for that. How the actual fk is this worthless piece of st still there?

[Blackpuddin]

This electronic procedure really is most odd, the time for voting has expired and yet the votes are still going up.

[Challo]

Blackpuddin said:

There may not be a next step if this carries on, 2 Dems have voted with the GOP

They will be the only 2. One of them Van Drew is switching to the Republicans after the impeachment vote. Unsure on the other Dem and his reason for not going with the majority.