Quantcast
Official Thread: The Impeachment of President Donald Trump

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official Thread: The Impeachment of President Donald Trump

PortisheadBiscuit said:
Snoopy said:
The Senate won't allow Trump to be impeached. Democrats are just salty because they know Trump is going to win 2020.

Or Dems want him out because he's a POS

Lowering taxes, record unemployment rate, started cracking down on illegal immigration and boosting our military capabilities. He seems like a great president to me. Probably the best we had since Regan.



Around the Network
Snoopy said:
PortisheadBiscuit said:

Or Dems want him out because he's a POS

Lowering taxes, record unemployment rate, started cracking down on illegal immigration and boosting our military capabilities. He seems like a great president to me. Probably the best we had since Regan.

What's so great about lowering taxes for the 1%? 

The unemployment rates had been falling long before Trump was president. Trump's base likes to give him credit for the economy and unemployment rates but never source how he allegedly did it. 

Cracking down on immigration by separating children from their families and wasting billions of tax payer money to fund his nonsensical, asinine 'wall'. Lets not forget the LIE about Mexico paying for the 'wall'

Greatest president ever...sure... 



PortisheadBiscuit said:
Snoopy said:

Lowering taxes, record unemployment rate, started cracking down on illegal immigration and boosting our military capabilities. He seems like a great president to me. Probably the best we had since Regan.

What's so great about lowering taxes for the 1%? 

The unemployment rates had been falling long before Trump was president. Trump's base likes to give him credit for the economy and unemployment rates but never source how he allegedly did it. 

Cracking down on immigration by separating children from their families and wasting billions of tax payer money to fund his nonsensical, asinine 'wall'. Lets not forget the LIE about Mexico paying for the 'wall'

Greatest president ever...sure... 

Damn if it is only for them it would be insane to see that as a positive when you are not part of that 1%,it is the other 99% that will need to make up for them having less taxes.



PortisheadBiscuit said:
Snoopy said:

Lowering taxes, record unemployment rate, started cracking down on illegal immigration and boosting our military capabilities. He seems like a great president to me. Probably the best we had since Regan.

What's so great about lowering taxes for the 1%? 

The unemployment rates had been falling long before Trump was president. Trump's base likes to give him credit for the economy and unemployment rates but never source how he allegedly did it. 

Cracking down on immigration by separating children from their families and wasting billions of tax payer money to fund his nonsensical, asinine 'wall'. Lets not forget the LIE about Mexico paying for the 'wall'

Greatest president ever...sure... 

I got a pretty sizable tax cut (around 2k) and I'm not in the top 1% Not to mention I got a pay raise because I have a marketable skill in the tech industry and H1B1 visas abusers are being rejected so employers have to do whatever it takes to retain me.

We spend a lot more money on illegal immigration than we are on the wall. The wall will help prevent illegal immigrants in the long run. If families don't want to be separated, don't come here illegally. Should we not put a criminal in jail just because they have a kid?

Last edited by Snoopy - on 01 December 2019

Jaicee said:
COKTOE said:

The middle initial is his most redeeming quality.

Sort of like with George Dubya Bush, who should definitely have been impeached too.

It's the Will of D!

Too bad both are more like followers of Blackbeard than Straw hat...



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:

Subpoenaed but did not testify

The following is a list of witnesses who were subpoenaed but were either blocked by their agency from testifying or refused to do so

Are there any actual consequences for those refusing to comply with a subpoena?  

Every so often someone tries telling me that West Korea "is a nation of laws", but it's reallllly difficult to make that case if senior government officials can refuse to comply with lawful orders to appear in court.  The self-proclaimed Tough-on-Crime Party of Law and Order/Personal Responsibility must be outraged by such despotic shenanigans.  Truly, anyone with patriotic devotion to freedom would stand against such godless corruption (not that any of Beloved Leader's collaborators have any patriotic devotion to anything).



SuaveSocialist said:
SpokenTruth said:

Subpoenaed but did not testify

The following is a list of witnesses who were subpoenaed but were either blocked by their agency from testifying or refused to do so

Are there any actual consequences for those refusing to comply with a subpoena?  

Every so often someone tries telling me that West Korea "is a nation of laws", but it's reallllly difficult to make that case if senior government officials can refuse to comply with lawful orders to appear in court.  The self-proclaimed Tough-on-Crime Party of Law and Order/Personal Responsibility must be outraged by such despotic shenanigans.  Truly, anyone with patriotic devotion to freedom would stand against such godless corruption (not that any of Beloved Leader's collaborators have any patriotic devotion to anything).

Yes.  Contempt of Congress is punishable by up to 12 months in prison and up to a $100,000 fine per offense.

However, I suspect the House is not going to refer them to the U.S. Attorney's office but will use them as a part of the Articles of Impeachment.

SanAndreasX said:
If Trump does somehow get convicted and removed from office (which is an extremely long shot), a new VP would need to be selected as well, as per the 25th Amendment. Unlike cabinet and judicial appointments which are only approved by the Senate, the new VP must be approved by a majority of both Houses of Congress, which would mean the Democrats would have to approve of the choice as well.

I say this because of all the stupid memes I see claiming that Pence could simply appoint Trump as a VP, and ones which go further to say that Pence would then resign and Trump would ascend back into the Presidency.

Correct.  Unfortunately most U.S. citizens do not understand this process and are perpetuating these wild fantasies of how Trump could return as POTUS.

Snoopy said:
The Senate won't allow Trump to be impeached. Democrats are just salty because they know Trump is going to win 2020.

ATTENTION ALL: This topic is of an extremely sensitive nature and it demands we all respect it as such. Debate is welcomed but ignoble or derisive comments will not be tolerated.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
SuaveSocialist said:

Are there any actual consequences for those refusing to comply with a subpoena?  

Every so often someone tries telling me that West Korea "is a nation of laws", but it's reallllly difficult to make that case if senior government officials can refuse to comply with lawful orders to appear in court.  The self-proclaimed Tough-on-Crime Party of Law and Order/Personal Responsibility must be outraged by such despotic shenanigans.  Truly, anyone with patriotic devotion to freedom would stand against such godless corruption (not that any of Beloved Leader's collaborators have any patriotic devotion to anything).

Yes.  Contempt of Congress is punishable by up to 12 months in prison and up to a $100,000 fine per offense.

However, I suspect the House is not going to refer them to the W.K. Attorney's office but will use them as a part of the Articles of Impeachment.

You are probably right, but the House should do both. 

If no one is above the law, no one should be permitted to defy their legal obligations without legal consequences.  Further, it may be a calculated decision if their testimony will be more damaging to their case than their own lawlessness.  The House should refer them to the WK Attorney's office as it pressures them to comply with the next subpoena, it is necessary in ensuring that no one is above the law, and it allows the House to pursue testimony that will either add to their case or support existing facts. 

The House should also use it in the Articles of Impeachment, as refusing to comply with subpoenas are already a matter of record and fits an enduring pattern of obstruction and lawlessness.  

I don't know why the House is acting like this is some kind of higher standard.  Refuse to comply with a subpoena?  Charged with Contempt of Congress.  Refuse to comply with a subpoena during an Impeachment process?  Document that refusal in the Articles of Impeachment.  This should just be the baseline.



Just wanted to leave this video here, it's the impeachment from the view of a lawyer, so someone who can actually tell you what's a crime and what's not, and what is an impeachable offense:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca12k2qbUQM

Pretty damning if you ask me.



The number one thing people need to understand and get right. Impeachment IS ONLY in the house.
Only the house is responsible for impeachment.

The senate handles removal after impeachment. They have nothing to do with the actual impeachment.

That means two things really. 1) Trump will be impeached. The house has the majority. They only started the hearings knowing they have the numbers - and things have only gone worse for Trump.

And 2) Trump won't be removed. That requires 2/3, or 67 people. That requires all democrats and TWENTY republicans. Blind vote (which won't happen) or not - it will never happen.

Oh and nice thread @SpokenTruth.



  • Deadliest mass shooting by an individual in US history (10/01/2017)
  • Deadliest high school shooting in US history (02/14/2018)
  • Deadliest massacre of Jews in US history (10/27/2018)
  • Political assassination attempt of TWO former presidents(and 10+ other people)  (10/23/2018 - and beyond)