• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

White House discussing whether to argue that Trump wasn't officially Impeached due to Pelosi not sending the articles to the Senate

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,305
70,117
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,156
51,426
1,215

So is the new play? Calling for the end of yge Senate?

The irony that Trump is accused of being a monarch and power hungry and shits on the constitution. Yet its the Dems who cant accept not having power and want to rig the game. Cant win the GE lets get rid of the EC. Dont have a majority in the Senate lets get rid of it/change it. Lost the election lets overturn the results. I bet if they lose the house they will cry its racist and it needs to be abolished as well.
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
43,950
24,183
1,805
Vox are scum, straight up lying to their readers about the purpose of dividing governmental powers between branches. They would rather tear down the foundations of the country than admit they lost 2016. How ridiculous.

It's written by Matthew Yglesias... Don't expect better from him. He is just an agitator lacking in any kind of principles.
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
43,950
24,183
1,805
So is the new play? Calling for the end of yge Senate?

The irony that Trump is accused of being a monarch and power hungry and shits on the constitution. Yet its the Dems who cant accept not having power and want to rig the game. Cant win the GE lets get rid of the EC. Dont have a majority in the Senate lets get rid of it/change it. Lost the election lets overturn the results. I bet if they lose the house they will cry its racist and it needs to be abolished as well.

Not new at all. A lot of smug city-dwelling "progressives" have long thought that they deserve more representation than states with small populations who "vote against their own interests."
 

Grinchy

Member
Aug 3, 2010
27,721
19,103
1,305
a cave outside of Whoville.
Vox are scum, straight up lying to their readers about the purpose of dividing governmental powers between branches. They would rather tear down the foundations of the country than admit they lost 2016. How ridiculous.

And you know the article wouldn't exist if the House was a republican majority right now. Then that would be the branch that is the "problem."
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
13,888
28,177
1,040




 
  • Fire
Reactions: Oner

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
8,076
8,065
805
Canada





How dare you imply that it was Ukraine NOT Russia that interfered! Beep boop beep.
 
Dec 15, 2011
10,008
26,686
1,265
  • LOL
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
44,610
88,398
1,355

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
8,076
8,065
805
Canada
Tulsi should have voted no. Her wishy washy response that Trump has done bad things doesn't fly. You were voting on specific articles of impeachment. Not his overall record.

"its hard to think anything could plumb depths lower than the republican defense of President Trump." The defense that sewing circle gossip doesn't rise to proof of wrongdoing is plumbing depths. Keep losing elections losers.
 

CDiggity

Member
Jan 3, 2014
1,229
293
495
I mean if she brought up the potential conflict of interest voting on legislation directed at a political rival as a candidate for the nomination of an opposing party of said rival, then a present vote could be justified.

From what I can tell her view is "Trump did bad stuff, but I do not think it is impeachable and we should be careful" means she has reservations about what was presented, therefore she should have voted no, and then debated that her vote was against the content of the articles and not a vote defending Trump.
 

Hotspurr

Banned
Jan 27, 2018
1,267
1,449
450
Mitch walking things back already:

Serves the guy right, saying your not an impartial judge just made the optics terrible for Republicans and now looks like we'll at least get some additional witnesses, especially those with first hand knowledge that Trump tried to block.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
13,888
28,177
1,040

(Dec. 22, 2019) — The United States Supreme Court – in a 9-0 holding – unequivocally ruled that no trial is required for the Senate to acquit, or convict, anyone impeached by the House of Representatives. Even liberal Justices Stevens and Souter concurred in the ironclad judgment. The case is Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

Once you comprehend the momentous importance of this case, you will then understand why Harvard Law School professor (and Democrat impeachment witness), Noah Feldman, recently published an article erroneously claiming that President Trump hasn’t been impeached yet.

Feldman isn’t trying to help the President. He knows the Senate can acquit immediately without waiting for Speaker Pelosi to transfer articles of impeachment, or for House impeachment managers to be appointed. This is because the Supreme Court has ruled – in the Nixon case – that how the Senate goes about acquitting or convicting any impeached person is non-justiciable, in that the Senate’s power is plenary and the Supreme Court may not even review it.

This means that if the Senate acquits Trump immediately – without a trial – the Supreme Court has no authority, whatsoever, to review the Senate’s acquittal, and there isn’t a damn thing the House can do about it.

Feldman is distracting the nation from understanding the full scope of Senate acquittal authority. He knows that if the House hasn’t impeached the President, the Senate could not immediately acquit him. This is why Feldman appears to be defending POTUS.

Appearances are deceptive. Feldman’s true game is to provide cover for Pelosi’s power play in not delivering the articles of impeachment or choosing House impeachment managers, neither of which is necessary for the House to impeach. The Constitution doesn’t mention “articles of impeachment” or “impeachment managers.” And once the House impeaches, the Senate takes over. The House then has no power whatsoever to dictate terms of a trial. No trial is even required.

More at link
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
13,888
28,177
1,040

Legacy media has pivoted from 'hhahaha there is no deepstate you crazies' to multiple articles defending and even celebrating the deepstate.


I can think of no better evidence than that they are running scared, trying to build a defensive shield for when Durham's report comes out.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,305
70,117
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com

Legacy media has pivoted from 'hhahaha there is no deepstate you crazies' to multiple articles defending and even celebrating the deepstate.


I can think of no better evidence than that they are running scared, trying to build a defensive shield for when Durham's report comes out.
Yeah there were also articles two months ago about why the "deep state is a good thing" as IG Horowitz was running his probe into the FBI's handling of the FISA applications.

 
  • Like
  • LOL
Reactions: CatLady and oatmeal

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
44,610
88,398
1,355
Yeah there were also articles two months ago about why the "deep state is a good thing" as IG Horowitz was running his probe into the FBI's handling of the FISA applications.


Only the dumbest of mofo's would buy into this narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oatmeal

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,156
51,426
1,215
Of course they are, spooks are all over the media. Turn on CNN or MSNBS and what do you see? Spooks as talking heads getting nice fat paychecks.

They don't want their gravy train to end so just get their media pay masters to start pumping out articles on how important the deep state is.

Remember when the "deep state" was just some whako Trump conspiracy...
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
4,453
7,250
1,770
Montreal, Quebec

More at link

I suspected there was an angle to Feldman' recent piece on impeachment. That explains it all. Is there nothing these people won't say/do to deceive the public?
 
Last edited:

Sacred

Member
Aug 22, 2018
1,106
1,929
445

I wonder if the Democrats are misguided enough to use impeachment to get a constitutional convention going to turn the Senate into another proportionally elected Congress. Impeachment support is dwindling, and they cannot possibly get the voting supermajorities needed to ratify a new amendment.

If the plan was to use "We cannot send it to the Senate because they will protect wicked Drumpf" to generate support for an amendment, it has backfired. Support for impeachment is nearly less than half of what is needed for an amendment, depending what route they go.



He calls Sharia Law (paraphrasing) one of the most humane law systems ever devised.

Throwing gays off rooftops? Humane, I guess.

Stoning adultering women? Humane, I guess.

Chopping off hands of thieves? Humane, I guess.

So what will their excuse be when the Republicans retake the house in 2020?
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
13,888
28,177
1,040
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Oner

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
6,352
5,951
850

Some of us have been sounding this alarm for a very long time.

this statement is almost as stupid as saying trump is no longer the president

 

Moneal

Member
Sep 13, 2013
3,709
3,865
945
this statement is almost as stupid as saying trump is no longer the president


Horowitz's report said that "all" of the witnesses his team interviewed said "that the FBI did not try to recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs (confidential human sources), did not send CHSs to collect information in Trump campaign headquarters or Trump campaign spaces, and did not ask CHSs to join the Trump campaign or otherwise attend campaign related events as part of the investigation."
Horowitz added that "we found no information indicating otherwise."

"Spied"
The word "spied" is more subjective than the phrase "broke into," since "spied" can be used to describe both illegal and legal secret collection of information.
The inspector general found that the FBI opened individual investigative cases into four people affiliated with Trump's campaign -- campaign chairman Paul Manafort and foreign policy advisers George Papadopoulos, Carter Page and Michael Flynn -- and used confidential human sources and undercover employees to interact with Page, Papadopoulos, and with "a high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation."

McCarthy didn't say anything about the headquarters. He said the campaign. That would include people associated with the campaign, you know like Manafort, Papadopoulos, Page, and Flynn. Funny the IG report is conflicted on this.

Also there is this accusation from Barr

Attorney General William Barr said in an interview with NBC earlier this month that the campaign was "clearly spied upon," arguing that "wiring people up to go in and talk to people and make recordings of their conversations," and going through people's emails, "is spying." He told the Senate Judiciary Committee in May that he doesn't think the word spying is "pejorative," calling it "a good English word that in fact doesn't have synonyms because it is the broadest word incorporating really all forms of covert intelligence collection."

Notice the bolded. Going through people's emails is the modern equivalent to what was going on during Watergate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
13,888
28,177
1,040
this statement is almost as stupid as saying trump is no longer the president


That article is trash.

Facts First: Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz found no evidence the FBI "broke into" the Trump campaign while investigating the campaign's relationship with Russia. In addition to finding no physical break-in like the one that occurred at the Democratic National Committee office at the Watergate complex in 1972, Horowitz found no evidence that any member of the FBI investigation ever even suggested inserting informants into the Trump campaign.

It's absolutely clear to anyone paying attention he didn't mean 'break in' to a building.

And notice how the author reduces 'break in' to only two possibilities - physical break in or 'inserting informants'. What about an email breakin? What about a tech break in?

Or how about we actually analyze the tweet and realize the watergate break in was in order to install taps... and here, they installed taps via FISA abuse.

I think CNN is full of people that like to post 'but ps+ games aren't actually free'. Yeah, no shit. This is the same reason the left can't meme, can't understand trump's speech, and can't understand jokes.
 
Dec 15, 2011
10,008
26,686
1,265

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
18,123
8,715
1,695
Does Trump need a legal argument to say that he wasn't really impeached? I don't see why, it hasn't stopped him from saying anything he wanted in the past. I'm sure he's been calling it a fake impeachment at every one of his rallies. From a practical standpoint I don't see why it matters. Democrats will say they impeached him, republicans will say it wasn't a real impeachment, nothing will happen. Business as usual.

I'm sure Tulsi is getting a lot more shit than what little has shown up in the press. She's been running toward the wrong end zone for awhile now. American politics is a team sport, after all.
 
Last edited:

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
9,756
22,574
750

Schiff’s town hall turned into a schitt show. This is why they aren’t submitting the articles, they’re paralyzed. They should’ve thought things through more thoroughly.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

accel

Member
Sep 11, 2015
890
362
520

More at link

Thanks a lot for linking this piece, very informative.
 

wordslaughter

Member
Apr 17, 2019
1,247
3,510
425
this statement is almost as stupid as saying trump is no longer the president


Regardless of your statement, consider not using CNN as a source.
 

Hotspurr

Banned
Jan 27, 2018
1,267
1,449
450
Incredibly petty behavior on Trump's side. For someone who says the impeachment is a hoax and he won't pay any attention to it, he sure gets all twisted up and butthurt about it. The Twitter feed is akin to a kindergarten child complaining about his favorite toy being taken away.

The fact that his supporters now defend him for doing it is even more ridiculous. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Moneal

Ornlu

Banned
Oct 31, 2018
3,853
6,235
675
Incredibly petty behavior on Trump's side. For someone who says the impeachment is a hoax and he won't pay any attention to it, he sure gets all twisted up and butthurt about it. The Twitter feed is akin to a kindergarten child complaining about his favorite toy being taken away.

The fact that his supporters now defend him for doing it is even more ridiculous. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

*yawn*

So when is he getting removed from office? Oh, nothing new has happened. Nevermind. :messenger_grinning_sweat:
 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
8,076
8,065
805
Canada
FACT CHECK: The left can't analogy either.

TRUE

It is rich that we just had CNN and every other house Democrat invoking Watergate in reference to the Obstruction of Congress article when they had nothing in common. Now they release a fact check over someone else using the same tactics. Even more hilarious is people falling for it.
 

accel

Member
Sep 11, 2015
890
362
520
More regarding what's next in the impeachment story, apologies if it was already posted here or in a different thread:


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has already stated that President Trump will not be removed for the threadbare, inadequate articles of impeachment passed by the House. So, here are a few ways that it could turn out:

1. The Senate could entertain a motion by the president’s counsel to dismiss — before the start of a trial — both articles of impeachment, for failure to meet the constitutional threshold for stating a cause of action. Such a decision would require a simple majority of 51 votes because this would be a procedural motion;

2. The Senate could begin a trial and, thereafter, could end it whenever the Senate majority deems it has heard enough and calls for a vote. Such a vote would be called when the Senate majority is confident that a supermajority of 67 senators — two-thirds of the Senate — would not vote to convict;

3. The Senate could conduct a full-blown trial, and it could drag on for as long as the Senate majority feels doing so is in its interests. It has a wide berth for calling or subpoenaing witnesses as it feels is germane. This would cause a circus-like atmosphere that would require the Supreme Court’s chief justice, the presiding officer in a Senate trial, to make numerous rulings, some of which would be unpredictable in their outcomes.

4. The Senate, after the conclusion of a trial, could once again entertain a motion to dismiss, alleging that House Democrats had failed to prove their case. This is a procedural motion that would require a simple majority to make deliberations by the full Senate moot if passed.

5. And then there is a “nuclear option.” The Senate majority could make a procedural motion to adjourn the start of a trial until Nov. 4, 2020. That would allow the American people to decide the president’s fate at the ballot box. The Constitution is silent as to when a trial should occur, timewise. A simple majority of 51 votes would be necessary to pass such a motion.

No matter how the Senate deals with its “trial” obligations, the outcome does not change. The president either will be cleared by the impeachment articles being dismissed without the necessity of a trial or acquitted after a trial.

I think they should go with option 2, perhaps after grilling a couple of supposedly knowledgeable "witnesses of a crime" and showing once again that they have pretty much nothing.
 

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
6,352
5,951
850
Regardless of your statement, consider not using CNN as a source.

honestly if you want an objective opinion then you need to look at the sites that attack others, not the ones who would defend themselves. fox is silent on this because they have nothing of value to defend him. a lot of other sites are reporting this as well. read the content and decide for yourself, dont dismiss it based on the source. cnn staff are still journalists, not opinion pieces. they have both conservative and liberal writers.
 

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,156
51,426
1,215
More regarding what's next in the impeachment story, apologies if it was already posted here or in a different thread:




I think they should go with option 2, perhaps after grilling a couple of supposedly knowledgeable "witnesses of a crime" and showing once again that they have pretty much nothing.

I like option 5. Delay the whole thing till 2020 and watch the Dems whine and cry.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,326
19,071
675
Only the dumbest of mofo's would buy into this narrative.
You mean hotspurr?

honestly if you want an objective opinion then you need to look at the sites that attack others, not the ones who would defend themselves. fox is silent on this because they have nothing of value to defend him. a lot of other sites are reporting this as well. read the content and decide for yourself, dont dismiss it based on the source. cnn staff are still journalists, not opinion pieces. they have both conservative and liberal writers.
No they don’t
 
Last edited:

Grinchy

Member
Aug 3, 2010
27,721
19,103
1,305
a cave outside of Whoville.
I feel like giving it a fair trial is the best option. Don't play into the hands of the loons. Anything other than a fair trial is seen as a political move, and it needs to be clear who is really doing all of this for the wrong reasons.

Going down to their level just muddies the whole thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: accel

Moneal

Member
Sep 13, 2013
3,709
3,865
945
honestly if you want an objective opinion then you need to look at the sites that attack others, not the ones who would defend themselves. fox is silent on this because they have nothing of value to defend him. a lot of other sites are reporting this as well. read the content and decide for yourself, dont dismiss it based on the source. cnn staff are still journalists, not opinion pieces. they have both conservative and liberal writers.
I read the content and told you why it was bullshit.