MAGAThread XVIII: The Authority Is Total

[Aeritai]

Will the Senate impeach President Trump? If so I hope this ends all the political drama and the White House can focus on important things.

[Gormwood]

Will the Senate impeach President Trump? If so I hope this ends all the political drama and the White House can focus on important things.

The Republicans are more likely to if the votes are secret.

[Aeritai]

Will the Senate impeach President Trump? If so I hope this ends all the political drama and the White House can focus on important things.

The Republicans are more likely to if the votes are secret.

Good.

Though I have feeling that there's going to be more political drama once Pence takes over Trump's spot.

[Duskuarhiel]

Will the Senate impeach President Trump? If so I hope this ends all the political drama and the White House can focus on important things.

It won't happen because unfortunately the whole thing was a sham to try and get political points.

[Farnhamia]

Will the Senate impeach President Trump? If so I hope this ends all the political drama and the White House can focus on important things.

Point of information: President Trump has already been impeached. He was impeached when the House passed the two articles against him. The correct question is, will he be convicted by the Senate?

[Duskuarhiel]

Will the Senate impeach President Trump? If so I hope this ends all the political drama and the White House can focus on important things.

Point of information: President Trump has already been impeached. He was impeached when the House passed the two articles against him. The correct question is, will he be convicted by the Senate?

There was no quid pro quo, so doesn't that nullify the whole process?

[Aeritai]

Will the Senate impeach President Trump? If so I hope this ends all the political drama and the White House can focus on important things.

Point of information: President Trump has already been impeached. He was impeached when the House passed the two articles against him. The correct question is, will he be convicted by the Senate?

Oh I know he was impeached in the House, I just used the wrong wording so that's my fault.

[Farnhamia]

Point of information: President Trump has already been impeached. He was impeached when the House passed the two articles against him. The correct question is, will he be convicted by the Senate?

There was no quid pro quo, so doesn't that nullify the whole process?

I was merely correcting your somewhat askew perception of the process in saying that Trump has already been impeached. As for whether there was a quid pro quo, you might very well think so. I could not possibly comment.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Point of information: President Trump has already been impeached. He was impeached when the House passed the two articles against him. The correct question is, will he be convicted by the Senate?

There was no quid pro quo, so doesn't that nullify the whole process?

"No quid pro quo" was initially an excuse claiming Trump didn't ask for anything in exchange for aid. Nobody believes that any more.
Perhaps you mean Trump didn't get what he asked for. But it doesn't matter, the offense in in trying whether or not he succeeded.

Not to mention that there's still time for Zelensky to appoint a prosecutor to go after Hunter Biden. If he judges that Trump will get re-elected it could be a wise move for his national interest.

[Lamoni]

It matters not what else is brought up in connection with Ukraine. Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Senate GOP will not allow an impeachment inquiry to prosper, this much is certain.

You can also forget about voting Trump out -- even if popular fervor somehow survives Trump's attempts at election fraud, Trump simply will not leave office, and he will have the backing of the GOP, the military, and his supporters.

So the only way out before either eventuality is to protest en masse for as long as needed. Call for the resignation of every Republican official, from Trump on down. Dispose of the Republican Party, bloodily if need be, before Trump and the Republican Party disposes of democracy, and with it, as many battered and broken bodies as they can.

*** 7-day ban for advocating violence ***

[Lamoni]

The only edge I see is people still somehow insisting that 250 years of laws, norms, and precedents will finally hold Trump accountable, when there is every reason to be certain Trump won't ever be held accountable for anything so long as he is POTUS.

Here's an idea, unless you're an American how about you shut the fuck up about what Americans must do? Really that should he a general view. Unless you're a citizen of x nation, your opinion on what the citizens of x nation should do is irrelevant so keep it to yourself.

*** Warning for Flaming ***

[Vassenor]

Point of information: President Trump has already been impeached. He was impeached when the House passed the two articles against him. The correct question is, will he be convicted by the Senate?

There was no quid pro quo, so doesn't that nullify the whole process?

Aside from the fact it was proven that there was one during the House hearings. Or are we pretending those didn't happen just because it makes Trump look bad?

[Gravlen]

Here's an idea, unless you're an American how about you shut the fuck up about what Americans must do? Really that should he a general view. Unless you're a citizen of x nation, your opinion on what the citizens of x nation should do is irrelevant so keep it to yourself.

*** Warning for Flaming ***

Flaming?

[Gravlen]

Point of information: President Trump has already been impeached. He was impeached when the House passed the two articles against him. The correct question is, will he be convicted by the Senate?

There was no quid pro quo, so doesn't that nullify the whole process?

No.

Your bombastic assertion aside, there is plenty of evidence that Trump abused his power and solicited the Ukranian government to announce an investigation into the Bidens, including linking the release of aid to his request. I mean, Mick Mulvaney confirmed as much when asked, and most recently the GAO found that the Trump administration broke the law by withholding the aid.

So sure, you can believe that there was no quid pro quo, but that's what the trial part of the impeachment is supposed to sort out, which is the phase that starts now in the Senate.

It's somewhat analogous to a criminal trial. While you might maintain that the guy was dead by the time you got there, that claim alone won't nullify the charges the prosecutor has filed or the entire process. It's on to the trial phase to determine guilt now.

[The Archregimancy]

Here's an idea, unless you're an American how about you shut the fuck up about what Americans must do? Really that should he a general view. Unless you're a citizen of x nation, your opinion on what the citizens of x nation should do is irrelevant so keep it to yourself.

*** Warning for Flaming ***

I have reviewed the above action at Lamoni's request.

The warning against Tarsonis has been overturned on appeal.

I wish we had a better way of signalling that, but the ruling is also posted in the relevant Moderation thread: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=479875

[Page]

The only edge I see is people still somehow insisting that 250 years of laws, norms, and precedents will finally hold Trump accountable, when there is every reason to be certain Trump won't ever be held accountable for anything so long as he is POTUS.

Here's an idea, unless you're an American how about you shut the fuck up about what Americans must do? Really that should he a general view. Unless you're a citizen of x nation, your opinion on what the citizens of x nation should do is irrelevant so keep it to yourself.

If only Americans applied the same principle to foreign politics.

I've lived in Germany for almost 4 years now and I still have Fox News watching American family members who claim there are "no go zones" in Germany, which there are definitely not, that the country is on the brink of collapse because of refugees, which it definitely is not, or that half the women you see out in public now are in burqas, which they definitely are not.

But if I gave my opinion as someone who lives here and who has been acquainted with dozens of refugees, or the opinion of my German wife who at one point worked in helping refugees settle and find work, it will go in one ear and right out the other and then they will repeat "Fox News said..."

Same goes for Americans who think they're experts on other countries' health care systems.

[Zurkerx]

GOP threatens to weaponize impeachment witnesses amid standoff.

This is essentially a threat against the moderates of the GOP and Democrats: side with Democrats on witnesses and we'll force you to vote on our call for our witnesses. It's to be expected as both the defense and prosecution would be able to call witnesses in a trial, although in this case, they get to vote whether to approve or not.

My guess is that I don't see moderates bowing to demands for Biden, the Whistleblower, and some former DNC Contractor to be called. I do think, however, that the only witnesses that would be called are Bolton, Parnas, and Mulvaney. This quote sums it up:

The threat, Republicans hope, could help dissuade Democrats, and a handful of their Republican colleagues viewed as swing votes, from agreeing to subpoena Bolton or one of the other witnesses being requested by Democrats.

[Thermodolia]

GOP threatens to weaponize impeachment witnesses amid standoff.

This is essentially a threat against the moderates of the GOP and Democrats: side with Democrats on witnesses and we'll force you to vote on our call for our witnesses. It's to be expected as both the defense and prosecution would be able to call witnesses in a trial, although in this case, they get to vote whether to approve or not.

My guess is that I don't see moderates bowing to demands for Biden, the Whistleblower, and some former DNC Contractor to be called. I do think, however, that the only witnesses that would be called are Bolton, Parnas, and Mulvaney. This quote sums it up:

The threat, Republicans hope, could help dissuade Democrats, and a handful of their Republican colleagues viewed as swing votes, from agreeing to subpoena Bolton or one of the other witnesses being requested by Democrats.

Though it could backfire if the democrats agree to it in the spirt of a fair trial.

That’s what the Dems need to spin it as. Watch as Fox News shits the bed over that

[Thermodolia]

It matters not what else is brought up in connection with Ukraine. Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Senate GOP will not allow an impeachment inquiry to prosper, this much is certain.

You can also forget about voting Trump out -- even if popular fervor somehow survives Trump's attempts at election fraud, Trump simply will not leave office, and he will have the backing of the GOP, the military, and his supporters.

So the only way out before either eventuality is to protest en masse for as long as needed. Call for the resignation of every Republican official, from Trump on down. Dispose of the Republican Party, bloodily if need be, before Trump and the Republican Party disposes of democracy, and with it, as many battered and broken bodies as they can.

I know you are serving time so you won’t be able to answer just yet but what support in the military? Support for Trump is split among enlisted and he’s hated by the brass. If anything he doesn’t have any military support

[Gravlen]

GOP threatens to weaponize impeachment witnesses amid standoff.

This is essentially a threat against the moderates of the GOP and Democrats: side with Democrats on witnesses and we'll force you to vote on our call for our witnesses. It's to be expected as both the defense and prosecution would be able to call witnesses in a trial, although in this case, they get to vote whether to approve or not.

My guess is that I don't see moderates bowing to demands for Biden, the Whistleblower, and some former DNC Contractor to be called. I do think, however, that the only witnesses that would be called are Bolton, Parnas, and Mulvaney. This quote sums it up:

The threat, Republicans hope, could help dissuade Democrats, and a handful of their Republican colleagues viewed as swing votes, from agreeing to subpoena Bolton or one of the other witnesses being requested by Democrats.

Is this really leverage? I mean, getting Bolton to testify for the price of Biden testifying? That sounds like a perfectly acceptable price to pay. Right now, I don't see that anyone has more to lose than Trump when it comes to calling witnesses, so call away I say.

[Zurkerx]

GOP threatens to weaponize impeachment witnesses amid standoff.

This is essentially a threat against the moderates of the GOP and Democrats: side with Democrats on witnesses and we'll force you to vote on our call for our witnesses. It's to be expected as both the defense and prosecution would be able to call witnesses in a trial, although in this case, they get to vote whether to approve or not.

My guess is that I don't see moderates bowing to demands for Biden, the Whistleblower, and some former DNC Contractor to be called. I do think, however, that the only witnesses that would be called are Bolton, Parnas, and Mulvaney. This quote sums it up:

The threat, Republicans hope, could help dissuade Democrats, and a handful of their Republican colleagues viewed as swing votes, from agreeing to subpoena Bolton or one of the other witnesses being requested by Democrats.

Though it could backfire if the democrats agree to it in the spirt of a fair trial.

That’s what the Dems need to spin it as. Watch as Fox News shits the bed over that

It seems highly unlikely to me that they would though if some arrangement is made, then yes, the GOP would be screwed, especially when the people see that witnesses like the Bidens offered nothing relevant to a case involving a President abusing his power, which becomes more obvious as each day passes. At most though, I can see them calling the Whistleblower.

[Gormwood]

GOP threatens to weaponize impeachment witnesses amid standoff.

This is essentially a threat against the moderates of the GOP and Democrats: side with Democrats on witnesses and we'll force you to vote on our call for our witnesses. It's to be expected as both the defense and prosecution would be able to call witnesses in a trial, although in this case, they get to vote whether to approve or not.

My guess is that I don't see moderates bowing to demands for Biden, the Whistleblower, and some former DNC Contractor to be called. I do think, however, that the only witnesses that would be called are Bolton, Parnas, and Mulvaney. This quote sums it up:

The threat, Republicans hope, could help dissuade Democrats, and a handful of their Republican colleagues viewed as swing votes, from agreeing to subpoena Bolton or one of the other witnesses being requested by Democrats.

Is this really leverage? I mean, getting Bolton to testify for the price of Biden testifying? That sounds like a perfectly acceptable price to pay. Right now, I don't see that anyone has more to lose than Trump when it comes to calling witnesses, so call away I say.

The Republicans have no proof Biden had dirty hands in Ukraine, the best they could do was try to Benghazi him in hopes the public is distracted. The Democrats agreeing would kick the GOP in the balls.

[Tarsonis]

Is this really leverage? I mean, getting Bolton to testify for the price of Biden testifying? That sounds like a perfectly acceptable price to pay. Right now, I don't see that anyone has more to lose than Trump when it comes to calling witnesses, so call away I say.

The Republicans have no proof Biden had dirty hands in Ukraine, the best they could do was try to Benghazi him in hopes the public is distracted. The Democrats agreeing would kick the GOP in the balls.

Well yeah, unlike the Democrats, they weren't allowed to investigate indefinitely in search of a crime.

[Gormwood]

Though it could backfire if the democrats agree to it in the spirt of a fair trial.

That’s what the Dems need to spin it as. Watch as Fox News shits the bed over that

It seems highly unlikely to me that they would though if some arrangement is made, then yes, the GOP would be screwed, especially when the people see that witnesses like the Bidens offered nothing relevant to a case involving a President abusing his power, which becomes more obvious as each day passes. At most though, I can see them calling the Whistleblower.

Given that the GAO just ruled Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act, the Republicans can't spin it as political axe grinding anymore. The only purpose besides trying to bait the Democrats would be to expose the whistleblower to threats or even assault as petty reprisal.

[Thermodolia]

The Republicans have no proof Biden had dirty hands in Ukraine, the best they could do was try to Benghazi him in hopes the public is distracted. The Democrats agreeing would kick the GOP in the balls.

Well yeah, unlike the Democrats, they weren't allowed to investigate indefinitely in search of a crime.

Dude your either forgetting things/are too young to remember 2014 or you are being willfully ignorant.

The republicans in 2014 called over 9 committees into the ongoings of Benghazi. For two years they hammered that drum. Turn about is fair play