Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."

«‹›322 »

DarkHorse: Dec 13, 2006; Nap Ghost

SchrodingersCat posted:

The Democratic party right now is what the Republican party was in the 1960s. Our politics have moved that far to the right.

The Democrats also don't seem to realize that the Republicans fully intend to destroy them, and are playing at . The Republicans know that America is trending progressive and anti-rich, and are fighting for their lives, which is why they are fully inviting foreign interference and money.

Nixon supported universal healthcare and voted in the EPA and Clean Water Act

# ? Dec 10, 2019 17:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 06:17

oxsnard: Oct 8, 2003

Here's the text

quote:

Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". In his conduct of the office of President of the United States�and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed�Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency, in that:

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

(1) President Trump�acting both directly and through his agents Within and Outside the United States Government?corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into�

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden,; and
(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine�rather than Russia�interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump�acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government�conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested�

(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and
(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.

These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.

In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. He has also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.

Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". In his conduct of the office of President of the United States?and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed�Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its "sole Power of Impeachment". President Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:

The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on President Trump's corrupt solicitation of the Government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United States Presidential election. As part of this impeachment inquiry, the Committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various Executive Branch agencies and offices, and current and former officials.

In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the "sole Power of Impeachment" vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees�in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees�in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.

Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representatives in the exercise of its "sole Power of Impeachment". In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". This abuse of office served to cover up the President's own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment�and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.

In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 17:47

SchrodingersCat: Aug 23, 2011

DarkHorse posted:

Nixon supported universal healthcare and voted in the EPA and Clean Water Act

Nixon was evil, but he wasn't stupid. I don't think Nixon was as pro-rich as the current Republicans are. He was just pro-Nixon.

Like I said, the Democrats now are what Republicans were in the 1960s and 1970s. Nixon is a good example of that.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 17:50

Grouchio: Aug 31, 2014

Sounds good?

# ? Dec 10, 2019 17:50

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

oxsnard posted:

Here's the text

sounds good/fine to me.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 17:54

The Lemondrop Dandy: Jun 7, 2007; If my memory serves me correctly...; Wedge Regret

Reading the articles of impeachment, it's interesting how short and narrow the text really is. (1) is abuse of power which will get the most attention and we are all familiar with, but (2) obstruction of congress is so cut-and-dried that it's hard to see how it will be argued against. Obstruction of Congress is basically that A) Congress subpoenaed documents and testimony, B) Trump ordered a bunch of the executive folks to refuse to comply, C) this is an abrogation of the constitutional power of the congress.

I'm super interested in seeing how the arguments against the obstruction of congress will go.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 17:56

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

The Lemondrop Dandy posted:

Reading the articles of impeachment, it's interesting how short and narrow the text really is. (1) is abuse of power which will get the most attention and we are all familiar with, but (2) obstruction of congress is so cut-and-dried that it's hard to see how it will be argued against. Obstruction of Congress is basically that A) Congress subpoenaed documents and testimony, B) Trump ordered a bunch of the executive folks to refuse to comply, C) this is an abrogation of the constitutional power of the congress.

I'm super interested in seeing how the arguments against the obstruction of congress will go.

The argument against OoC will be that the Democrats were in too much of a hurry and could have gotten the information and witnesses eventually, once the Judicial branch finished reviewing the subpoenas. It's bullshit, of course, but it's the only plausible defense.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 17:59

oxsnard: Oct 8, 2003

The Lemondrop Dandy posted:

Reading the articles of impeachment, it's interesting how short and narrow the text really is. (1) is abuse of power which will get the most attention and we are all familiar with, but (2) obstruction of congress is so cut-and-dried that it's hard to see how it will be argued against. Obstruction of Congress is basically that A) Congress subpoenaed documents and testimony, B) Trump ordered a bunch of the executive folks to refuse to comply, C) this is an abrogation of the constitutional power of the congress.

I'm super interested in seeing how the arguments against the obstruction of congress will go.

"daddy trump did nothing wrong and hunter biden was paid 50k per month"

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:00

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

The problem is that �obstruction of Congress� has happened a lot already and nothing changed, so it sounds toothless. �Obstruction of justice� is what people were pissing themselves over, so it sounds dead serious. Why wouldn�t we use the scarier article if we know it happened?

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:09

Fart Amplifier: Apr 12, 2003

The Lemondrop Dandy posted:

(2) obstruction of congress is so cut-and-dried that it's hard to see how it will be argued against.

1) "There was no underlying crime,"
2) "The phony Steele Dossier/Lisa Page/other thing proves that the Mueller report was illegal" (I know this isn't about the Mueller report but this argument will come up)
3) "Schiff wrote the whistleblower complaint"
4) A bunch of other things that are equally insane but will somehow cast enough "doubt" on the articles

Why do I believe this? All the insane things we laugh about here that were said in the House inquiry are literally parroted as fact by Fox News. People watch them literally scream and yell about what a coup this is by Schiff (who is portrayed on Fox News by an actor wearing lipstick and makeup)

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:10

Fart Amplifier: Apr 12, 2003

Pollyanna posted:

The problem is that �obstruction of Congress� has happened a lot already and nothing changed, so it sounds toothless. �Obstruction of justice� is what people were pissing themselves over, so it sounds dead serious. Why wouldn�t we use the scarier article if we know it happened?

I assume the long game is to give a future Dem president precedent to ignore subpoenas since the GOP is doing that already

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:11

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

Fart Amplifier posted:

I assume the long game is to give a future Dem president precedent to ignore subpoenas since the GOP is doing that already

BUT OBAMA DID THIS TOO FAST AND FURIOUS

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:14

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

Fart Amplifier posted:

I assume the long game is to give a future Dem president precedent to ignore subpoenas since the GOP is doing that already

Wonder what kind of calculus Mitch is doing about this, actually.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:18

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Deteriorata posted:

The argument against OoC will be that the Democrats were in too much of a hurry and could have gotten the information and witnesses eventually, once the Judicial branch finished reviewing the subpoenas. It's bullshit, of course, but it's the only plausible defense.

Yet even this defense was killed by Schiff this morning when he pointed out that they can't wait 8 months every time a witness comes up with a bullshit "privilege" that prevents them from talking.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:19

Grouchio: Aug 31, 2014

FilthyImp posted:

Wonder what kind of calculus Mitch is doing about this, actually.

Since when has calculus been a prerequisite for congressmen? :thunk:

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:25

DarkHorse: Dec 13, 2006; Nap Ghost

FilthyImp posted:

Wonder what kind of calculus Mitch is doing about this, actually.

"Laws only apply to Democrats, not Republicans "

See: Merrick Garland vs. RBG's replacement, re: a vacancy in an election year

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:26

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

Grouchio posted:

Since when has calculus been a prerequisite for congressmen?

mitch needs to make some calculus to keep his and the parties head above water. they are in a rock and hard place and they have to thread a bunch of needles to keep themselves as a majority in 2020.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:28

oxsnard: Oct 8, 2003

Dapper_Swindler posted:

mitch needs to make some calculus to keep his and the parties head above water. they are in a rock and hard place and they have to thread a bunch of needles to keep themselves as a majority in 2020.

imo their best option is to boot trump and quickly ascend nikki haley to the forefront, but they won't do that so here we are

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:31

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

oxsnard posted:

imo their best option is to boot trump and quickly ascend nikki haley to the forefront, but they won't do that so here we are

pretty much. either they do a big dumb show trial and it gets even uglier for them in 2020 OR they boot him and the chud base rebels.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:34

InsertPotPun: Apr 16, 2018; Pissy Bitch stan

The Lemondrop Dandy posted:

Reading the articles of impeachment, it's interesting how short and narrow the text really is. (1) is abuse of power which will get the most attention and we are all familiar with, but (2) obstruction of congress is so cut-and-dried that it's hard to see how it will be argued against. Obstruction of Congress is basically that A) Congress subpoenaed documents and testimony, B) Trump ordered a bunch of the executive folks to refuse to comply, C) this is an abrogation of the constitutional power of the congress.

I'm super interested in seeing how the arguments against the obstruction of congress will go.

trump didn't order anything "official" and twitter doesn't count.

democrats look like silly clowns for attacking obvious joke tweets from our hilarious comedy president.

8 more years (lol just kidding but seriously: 8 more years lol!)

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:39

AhhYes: Dec 1, 2004; * Click *; College Slice

Regardless of the outcome, I must admit, the articles are a bit therapeutic to read.

I think the limited scope is a good idea. They're straightforward and understandable.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:39

Kith: Sep 17, 2009; You never learn anything
by doing it right.

There's also nothing stopping them from bringing up new ones as evidence is uncovered - for instance, when they finally get their hands on the financials.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:55

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

Kith posted:

There's also nothing stopping them from bringing up new ones as evidence is uncovered - for instance, when they finally get their hands on the financials.

I do feel like this may be part of "the plan" if there is one. GO forward now with the two solid articles. If and when the financials come out, make them a separate issue entirely from the Ukraine issue.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:58

tokyo reject: Jun 12, 2019; when she's tryin to slide into your dm's but you wanna talk about a better america

Honestly if they booted Trump I don't think the GOP as a party would lose seats in the Senate, a bunch of current GOP Senators would just get primaried. The CHUD base wouldn't stay home, especially with Trump screaming 24/7 on Twitter and Fox singling out each and every Republican Senator that voted to convict. The CHUD base would be out for blood, and it'd lead to an even more radicalized GOP.

I don't think the calculus in the Senate is about the GOP collectively keeping their majority, so much as individual Senators trying to keep their seats. Keeping their majority is just a default part of that if they can manage to all keep their seats.

Speaking of calculating assholes, when's the last time Manchin spoke up on impeachment? I could see him totally go "ho hum, election is around the corner, congress is dysfunctional, let the people decide, I'm above the fray" etc etc.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:58

Rosalind: Apr 30, 2013; When we hit our lowest point, we are open to the greatest change.

So they vote to impeach, the trial goes to the Senate, and then does the House in their role as prosecutors get much more powerful subpoena powers and they can finally get everything Trump has been blocking right?

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:59

oxsnard: Oct 8, 2003

I want them to go after the trump kids hard too.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 18:59

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

Rosalind posted:

So they vote to impeach, the trial goes to the Senate, and then does the House in their role as prosecutors get much more powerful subpoena powers and they can finally get everything Trump has been blocking right?

Not quite.

The house can subpoena now, but they are being fought in the courts and it takes time to litigate. They do not wan to be caught up in litigation as it will remove any momentum behind their push for impeachment. Once it goes to the senate their role is done.

They can now do both, pursue the financials via long court fights, and push impeachment at the same time.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 19:02

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Rosalind posted:

So they vote to impeach, the trial goes to the Senate, and then does the House in their role as prosecutors get much more powerful subpoena powers and they can finally get everything Trump has been blocking right?

Assuming Roberts approves the subpoenas, there's not much that can be done to fight them.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 19:05

actionjackson: Jan 12, 2003

I'm guessing they will subpoena Bolton. I wonder if they'll try to force Trump to testify.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 19:06

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

actionjackson posted:

I'm guessing they will subpoena Bolton. I wonder if they'll try to force Trump to testify.

Bolton will absolutely get a subpoena.

I do not believe they can force Trump to testify in any way.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 19:07

actionjackson: Jan 12, 2003

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

Bolton will absolutely get a subpoena.

I do not believe they can force Trump to testify in any way.

Is there anyone else that is immune like that? Pence?

# ? Dec 10, 2019 19:10

SchrodingersCat: Aug 23, 2011

Deteriorata posted:

Assuming Roberts approves the subpoenas, there's not much that can be done to fight them.

And while I don't like Roberts agenda, I don't think he is going to be Trump's puppet in the Senate trial.

Dems will haul the entire executive branch out in front of the public.

I hope they shank Nunes too.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 19:11

Rosalind: Apr 30, 2013; When we hit our lowest point, we are open to the greatest change.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

Once it goes to the senate their role is done.

I don't think that's true. I thought when the trial occurs in the Senate, the House serves as the prosecutors. Am I wrong?

# ? Dec 10, 2019 19:15

oxsnard: Oct 8, 2003

Rosalind posted:

I don't think that's true. I thought when the trial occurs in the Senate, the House serves as the prosecutors. Am I wrong?

This is correct. Senate sets the rules, but the house has a huge role in presenting the case and calling witnesses

# ? Dec 10, 2019 19:16

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

SchrodingersCat posted:

And while I don't like Roberts agenda, I don't think he is going to be Trump's puppet in the Senate trial.

Dems will haul the entire executive branch out in front of the public.

I hope they shank Nunes too.

roberts knows their is a future beyond trump and is smart enough to play the long game. pence will probably get spared either way but who knows with trump and nunes and rudy will be a sacrifice.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 19:16

Gatts: Jan 2, 2001; Goodnight Moon; Nap Ghost

Don�t forget Mitch is on the take from Russian money so even if he has concerns with the GOP he had them build a plant in Kentucky and he might go for broke to support his meal ticket. Might place that as more important than the Republican Party.

Roberts is dangerous but you might be able to play him and his legacy

# ? Dec 10, 2019 19:29

InsertPotPun: Apr 16, 2018; Pissy Bitch stan

oxsnard posted:

I want them to go after the trump kids hard too.

they won't. all of these people and all of this poo poo will be with the country forever. in 2046 you'll have trump jr on CNN giving his hot takes on what kind of custom Hawaiian shirt president miller is wearing

# ? Dec 10, 2019 19:34

Random Stranger: Nov 27, 2009

SchrodingersCat posted:

I hope they shank Nunes too.

Nunes is the one person they explicitly cannot call. Well, one of 435 people they explicitly cannot call.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 19:42

Saxophone: Sep 19, 2006

I like that there are initially just two. It's clear, it's concise, all the evidence is already there to hammer them with. If we're lucky, the strategy is to start with these two, and then hammer him with more as more and more evidence piles up. You could build up some serious inertia leading up to the election.

If there were more, I think the Republican line would be "they're just throwing it all at the wall to see what sticks!". With this focus, you catch more lies and they are more public and have a bigger impact than hearing about this thing today and then some other related but not quite thing tomorrow, etc.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 19:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 06:17

SchrodingersCat: Aug 23, 2011

Random Stranger posted:

Nunes is the one person they explicitly cannot call. Well, one of 435 people they explicitly cannot call.

They don't have to call Nunes. They have to call Parnas.

# ? Dec 10, 2019 19:47

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."

«‹›322 »