• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brilliant Idea from John Dean

HumblePi said:
I think John Dean's idea is masterful.

View attachment 67269474
Click to expand...

Except if they tried anything like that GOP would likely take the House, repeal the articles of Impeachment and assign surviving dems to the House Committee on Portable Toilets.
 
trouble13 said:
Im not a constitutional scholar so im not even sure if thats possible but assuming that it is, do you not see the political problem to impeach him and not send it to the senate for a vote?

On one hand she has claimed she does not want to impeach him but its their Constitutional duty and they have to do it because of the seriousness of the nature of his crimes, then they are gonna not send it to the Senate based on the reasoning that its better to keep the process in a perpetual state of never ending investigations.

Do you really think that idea will sell with swing voters? I submit to you that it will make your party look like a bunch of cowards that are afraid to allow Trump to respond to what they he is being accused of. It will make the accusations themselves look like they are too fragile to stand up to scrutiny.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Democrats appear not to like Republicans that fight back, hence their hatred of Trump.
They'd much rather have Republicans just take it like clubbing tied down rabbits.
I guess it's their idea of being fair.
 
Bullseye said:
Except if they tried anything like that GOP would likely take the House, repeal the articles of Impeachment and assign surviving dems to the House Committee on Portable Toilets.
Click to expand...

Would the articles of impeachment be tabled, much like any other legislation that doesn't make it out of the house?
The new House session would have to, at least, re-vote on the articles of impeachment, I would think.
 
eohrnberger said:
Would the articles of impeachment be tabled, much like any other legislation that doesn't make it out of the house?
The new House session would have to, at least, re-vote on the articles of impeachment, I would think.
Click to expand...
The articles have to make it out of the House and be reported to the Senate for the impeachment process to be complete. What the Senate does with them is no longer a House problem. But the Senate has no way to run a trial without both a prosecutor and defense counsel. The most obvious prosecutors are the ones who prepared and voted out the indictment and history, tradition and both the senate and house rules presuppose that the same House that so forcefully advocates for conviction and removal in those articles would be the best and most passionate prosecutors of the case they prepared, investigated and documented. Unless Democratic Senators offered to fulfil that duty in place of the House chosen managers, I don't know how the Senate can run a trial and come to a verdict without the House fulfilling that role, but the constitution does not proscribe it to the House. The senate has to change their rules and hire lawyers to prosecute and and provide them ample time to prepare thus dragging this out, or simply move to table the articles and declare a mistrial.
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
Would the articles of impeachment be tabled, much like any other legislation that doesn't make it out of the house?
The new House session would have to, at least, re-vote on the articles of impeachment, I would think.
Click to expand...
If the GOP retook the House because of the blowback from the impeachment I'd bet the new Speaker would make it job #1 to repeal the articles. :cool:
 
Democrats = Completely bonkers
 
Trump wants the impeachment to happen quickly, and here's why:

Right now, Trump has the votes in the senate to be acquitted. That's because every republican senator who is up for re-election still has to face their primary. They do not dare abandon Trump at this point.

However, if the process extends past several key primary dates, those senators, having won their primaries will be free to vote as they want. In fact, some may even feel that they will solidify their re-election prospects by voting to convict, but only after their primary.

At the moment Trump has all these senators by the short curlies. All he has to do is put the word out and his base will dump the incumbent for someone who vows to be loyal to Trump, regardless of anything else. But if it drags out beyond the primaries, Trump loses his control over these senators.
 
The way this is actually going to work is, the Democrats will impeach, they will make the case to the Senate but there primary audience will be the American people.

There's a small chance some Republicans will vote to remove, but very likely the result will be Republicans will not remove trump, and both parties will look for those votes to help them with their polarized bases - Republicans and Democrats both saying it shows the need to elect them.
 
eohrnberger said:
Democrats appear not to like Republicans that fight back, hence their hatred of Trump.
They'd much rather have Republicans just take it like clubbing tied down rabbits.
I guess it's their idea of being fair.
Click to expand...
That really is the truth too. They are not use to being put on the defensive like Trump is doing to them. They are use to the medias abuse of public trust being strong enough to persuade a large enough group to agree with them and conservative ideals get crushed by sycophant progressives in the Republican party that sell us out.

Trump isnt the one holding the power here. Trump was elected to be our sharp and poisonous tip of the spear. Trumps supporters are the ones who hold the power. Trump is just the right guy in the right place at the right time. Trump is a tool of the movement and he understands that.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Athanasius68 said:
Not going to work.
Once an article of impeachment is passed, it goes to the Senate.
The House, I suppose, could choose to not show up.
Click to expand...

I have heard it discussed that there is no constitutional requirement to pass it to the senate. It sure would be something unexpected. I say it's a great idea. Just stonewall Trump like he's stonewalling congress. It would totally drive him nuts. And that doesn't take much.
 
trouble13 said:
Im not a constitutional scholar so im not even sure if thats possible but assuming that it is, do you not see the political problem to impeach him and not send it to the senate for a vote?

On one hand she has claimed she does not want to impeach him but its their Constitutional duty and they have to do it because of the seriousness of the nature of his crimes, then they are gonna not send it to the Senate based on the reasoning that its better to keep the process in a perpetual state of never ending investigations.

Do you really think that idea will sell with swing voters? I submit to you that it will make your party look like a bunch of cowards that are afraid to allow Trump to respond to what they he is being accused of. It will make the accusations themselves look like they are too fragile to stand up to scrutiny.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think that if such a scenario were possible that democrats would embrace it. Think about it, impeached by the House then going into the new year, taking all the time they want to go to court getting the refusals to appear all overturned, hearing testimony from first-hand operatives like Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo and Rudy Giuliani. They could sit and wait while the courts decide on documents that have been withheld and the WH could be compelled to turn them over to the Intel committee.

Democrats would have 11 months to get all of this done. There would be enough evidence to impeach 100 Trumps by Nov. 2020.
 
TurtleDude said:
Nice try but it doesn't work that way. John Dean might be one of the worst assholes in US Political history, BTW.
Click to expand...

Why is that? Because he told the truth against your other hero. Unbelievable. And no, I believe that honor belongs to William Barr.
 
HumblePi said:
I think that if such a scenario were possible that democrats would embrace it. Think about it, impeached by the House then going into the new year, taking all the time they want to go to court getting the refusals to appear all overturned, hearing testimony from first-hand operatives like Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo and Rudy Giuliani. They could sit and wait while the courts decide on documents that have been withheld and the WH could be compelled to turn them over to the Intel committee.

Democrats would have 11 months to get all of this done. There would be enough evidence to impeach 100 Trumps by Nov. 2020.
Click to expand...
Im not gonna belabor it by continuing to argue the point. I think it would be a political blunder for them to play keep away with the Senate for the reasons I stated. You obviously disagree and thats fine by me. We are entitled to our own opinions.

I will say one thing about the position you're staking out for yourself. You're advocating for the Democrats to take an obstructionist position and one that will hamstring the effectivness of this presidency. That disqualifies you from future complaints against obstructionist behaviours. You cant cheer it when its your party doing it and then condemn it when its being done against you. Its a two way street.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
The AntiDonald said:
I have heard it discussed that there is no constitutional requirement to pass it to the senate. It sure would be something unexpected. I say it's a great idea. Just stonewall Trump like he's stonewalling congress. It would totally drive him nuts. And that doesn't take much.
Click to expand...
Why would it drive him nuts? It would be a gift to him and the gop overall. They would get to avoid going on record with their votes and Trump will mock the Democrats open display of cowardice.

Not to mention that if it angers people that the president is being placed under a never ending investigation it may result in a landslide win in 2022 if the dems still have control of the house after 2020

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
The AntiDonald said:
Why is that? Because he told the truth against your other hero. Unbelievable. And no, I believe that honor belongs to William Barr.
Click to expand...

There was no truth to interpret in Dean's tweet.

It was only him making a suggestion.

Reading is fundamental. :roll:
 
TurtleDude said:
which was not worse than what the MINORITY Dems did by preventing Miguel Estrada and Peter Keisler from getting a vote for their court of appeals nominations. It is doubtful Garland had the votes to be seated. Estrada and Keisler did.
Click to expand...

Your post supports the assertion that the GOP simply no longer represent democratic principles. To deny a president's Supreme Court nominee is virtually unheard of. To say that a perfectly moderate Democrat with no history of insane judicial ideas like Bork could not win enough votes is a clear condemnation of the Republican Party.
 
TurtleDude said:
Nice try but it doesn't work that way. John Dean might be one of the worst assholes in US Political history, BTW.
Click to expand...

Why such such strong, angry feelings?
 
I think we should convict anyone, period.
Did someone say you shoplifted? Good, you are guilty.
Did someone accuse you of rape? Guilty.
Did someone say you committed fraud? Guilty.
Oh, and you are also guilty of crimes that haven't happened yet. Just wait. We'll find something to accuse you of.
Brilliant.
 
TurtleDude said:
Nice try but it doesn't work that way. John Dean might be one of the worst assholes in US Political history, BTW.
Click to expand...

No, don't say that. Just keep it in mind for the future.
 
HumblePi said:
I think John Dean's idea is masterful.

View attachment 67269474
Click to expand...

I think they are making a big mistake rushing the inquiry part of this impeachment. I don't think many Americans actually believe he didn't abuse the power of the Presidency, even though his supporters still defend him using the RW talking points of Faux, Lush and the Nunes crowd. I think there is a lot of interest by AmeriCAN's to get to the bottom of "IT", even if it means taking "IT" all the way to the Supreme Court. IF he successfully doges the impeachment bullet he will be embolden to believe he AbsaByGodLutely IS above the law.
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
Im not gonna belabor it by continuing to argue the point. I think it would be a political blunder for them to play keep away with the Senate for the reasons I stated. You obviously disagree and thats fine by me. We are entitled to our own opinions.

I will say one thing about the position you're staking out for yourself. You're advocating for the Democrats to take an obstructionist position and one that will hamstring the effectivness of this presidency. That disqualifies you from future complaints against obstructionist behaviours. You cant cheer it when its your party doing it and then condemn it when its being done against you. Its a two way street.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If it could be proven to be a legal tactic then I'm for it. There's no obstructionism at all in holding up impeachment in the Senate by simply voting impeachment in the House and keeping it in the House without advancing it to the Senate. That would untie the hands of the House Intel Committee that have been totally stonewalled by Trump and other obstructionist Republicans that have been doing this sort of obstructionism for nearly three years.

Trump flat out stated he will not cooperate with the impeachment hearings. The White House refused to cooperate in the inquiry, blocking witness testimony and document turnover. Key individuals who refused to comply with the inquiry include Vice President Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought, and Rudy Giuliani.

Other White House officials who have also refused to testify include National Security Council lawyers John Eisenberg and Michael Ellis; Mulvaney adviser Robert Blair; and Brian McCormack, the associate director for natural resources, energy, and science at the Office of Management and Budget. Trump ordered these people to break the law by refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas.

Additionally, the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of State, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy failed to produce any documents in response to “71 specific, individualized requests or demands for records in their possession, custody, or control.”

Did you advocate for that obstructionism? That's what obstruction looks like!
 
marke said:
That would be the best scenario for the House. That way they can control the narratives, select the witnesses, and block all evidence which would expose their partisan scam for what it is.
Click to expand...

You're half right, it would be the best scenario for the House to finally do a proper investigation without the stonewalling and obstructionism by Republicans. They could wait it out and get the proper decisions from the federal courts to impel all those witnesses that defied subpoenas to have to appear. Court decision would compel the WH to hand over all the documents that have been refused. It would finally become a full investigation, not one that has been denied 98% of what has been subpoenaed or requested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom