The official Impeachment Trial thread.

Jun 2018
7,784
1,938
South Dakota
Come to think of it, OBSTRUCTING could be the charge for any number of things: Obstructing Brains, Obstructing Precedent, Obstructing Truth, Obstructing Decency, Morality, Common Sense??
Just a few examples.
You're correct. What this kangaroo court the Dems have cobbled together is on the verge of doing is creating a doorway to allowing endless impeachment for anything the opposition party wants to use. If this actually is allowed to happen then I see a new wrinkle in the Dems scorched earth game, pre-impeachment that would prevent a Prez elect from holding office. It would also create condition where the party that holds the Senate would prevail in all impeachments and consign the process a level of gravitas equal to a parking ticket.
 
Jul 2019
12,700
9,306
Georgia
You're correct. What this kangaroo court the Dems have cobbled together is on the verge of doing is creating a doorway to allowing endless impeachment for anything the opposition party wants to use. If this actually is allowed to happen then I see a new wrinkle in the Dems scorched earth game, pre-impeachment that would prevent a Prez elect from holding office. It would also create condition where the party that holds the Senate would prevail in all impeachments and consign the process a level of gravitas equal to a parking ticket.
only solution to that is to get someone as clean as Obama back in the game

R's were so desperate to find something, anything, to impeach him over but nah
 
Nov 2005
10,146
5,528
California
You're correct. What this kangaroo court the Dems have cobbled together is on the verge of doing is creating a doorway to allowing endless impeachment for anything the opposition party wants to use.
Statements like this can be reinterpreted in one of two ways (or possibly both).
1) The person is irredeemably partisan to the degree they cannot consider rules being applied objectively to both sides. Especially when you consider how hypocritical it would be to say such a thing regarding Trump, yet both complain about the dossier being collected on Trump and push for an investigation into Biden. It is mind-boggling to insist that Biden should be investigated but that Trump should never have been troubled by this.

2) The person just has no recognition of corruption morality with regards to what Trump did. They see absolutely nothing wrong with a sitting politician using their governmental position to not only investigate a political rival, but also to illegally withhold funds in an effort to coerce the investigation.
 
Feb 2018
3,231
2,445
Oregon
Wow folks. No mention of the inexcusable disaster of the Iowa caucus vote tallying? I think it's going to be a big stain on the DNC. I didn't see it in any other thread. I'll keep looking. Apparently I was too hasty in my search.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2019
12,700
9,306
Georgia
Wow folks. No mention of the inexcusable disaster of the Iowa caucus vote tallying? I think it's going to be a big stain on the DNC.
it's being talked about in other threads

I don't think anyone is going to remember Iowa come November - you have to keep in mind how fast the news cycle moves in trumpian times.
 
Dec 2012
21,397
8,652
California
you're greatly overestimating disappointment here

pretty much everyone knew Repubs would vote against witnesses
in fact, I think this is going to hurt them more than if they had voted for witnesses

chew on it for a second, maybe you'll figure out what I mean
Hmm, no Republican witnesses in the House, none in the Senate. Chew on that.
 
Dec 2012
21,397
8,652
California
Statements like this can be reinterpreted in one of two ways (or possibly both).
1) The person is irredeemably partisan to the degree they cannot consider rules being applied objectively to both sides. Especially when you consider how hypocritical it would be to say such a thing regarding Trump, yet both complain about the dossier being collected on Trump and push for an investigation into Biden. It is mind-boggling to insist that Biden should be investigated but that Trump should never have been troubled by this.

2) The person just has no recognition of corruption morality with regards to what Trump did. They see absolutely nothing wrong with a sitting politician using their governmental position to not only investigate a political rival, but also to illegally withhold funds in an effort to coerce the investigation.
House rules were applied. Senate rules were applied. Separation of powers. Unsupportable allegation against Trump, supportable allegation against quid pro quo Joe.