Star Member ProfessorPlum (10,732 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212442985
"The Senate won't remove him" - why this is a pathetically weak argument
In the House, you investigate, you grill witnesses, you prepare a list of crimes. You shout to high heaven that this treasonous **** needs to be removed. You make the case.
And then, you yell that the Senate needs to remove him. You make a stink. you repeat his crimes, over and over. You repeat the proof.
THEN, when/if the Senate doesn't remove him, you make those Senators EAT IT. You shove their treason and failure to protect us in their face.
"Gee, the opposition won't do the right thing, so I guess we'll never put them in the situation where they have to choose". What kind of weakness is that? FORCE them to choose, then dump all over them when they inevitably do the wrong thing!!
I can't believe we have to fight these fascists with non-action.
So... can you show the jury, exactly the crimes that D. J. Trump has committed on this doll?
FiveGoodMen (18,911 posts)
3. Your Honor,
The defendant has lied, cheated, stolen, gotten people killed …
Let's not waste time with the legal process, let's just see how he does in popular opinion.
After all, isn't this "law" stuff kind of irrelevant?
The criminal law generally prohibits undesirable acts. Thus, proof of a crime requires proof of some act. Scholars label this the requirement of an actus reus or guilty act. Some crimes – particularly modern regulatory offenses – require no more, and they are known as strict liability offenses (E.g. Under the Road traffic Act 1988 it is a strict liability offence to drive a vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit). Nevertheless, because of the potentially severe consequences of criminal conviction, judges at common law also sought proof of an intent to do some bad thing, the mens rea or guilty mind. As to crimes of which both actus reus and mens rea are requirements, judges have concluded that the elements must be present at precisely the same moment and it is not enough that they occurred sequentially at different times.elocs (20,610 posts)
69. What do you think impeachment with no conviction will cost Trump?
When Trump is failed to be convicted in the Senate, what do you call him then, guilty?
Trump will be screaming that he was found innocent, so what do you tell the kids then? That people not convicted are still considered to be guilty?
There's not going to be any impeachment and every week and month that has gone by without it makes it far, far less likely with an election in 14 months.
Star Member wryter2000 (37,521 posts)
4. It won't make any difference to their voters
I'm all for loud, repeated investigations. And impeachment at the best time to hurt his attempts to get elected in 2020. But nothing is going to hurt Republicans who stand up for him.
Gothmog (72,189 posts)
7. Impeachment will help trump win re-election
kentuck (93,082 posts)
24. Why?
Why is an acquittal in the Senate more meaningful than an impeachment in the House? Especially when one has the facts of criminality and the other has nothing but denials?
That doesn't make sense to me?
Yes... show us those pesky facts...
Star Member Bettie (7,088 posts)
65. It's a lot harder to claim innocence
when your criminal and unethical activities have been laid out in public for months on end.
Then, your co-conspirators say "It's cool, we don't care what you did".
The smell lingers.
Or is it your contention that the House wouldn't find any wrongdoing by him and they should just leave poor innocent little Donnie alone?
Star Member Grasswire2 (4,888 posts)
12. removal during this term is not the goal
The goal is to beat him up every freaking day and beat up Republicans as well with the EVIDENCE that most Americans have never seen.
Evidence accrues daily for his criminality, his unfitness for office, his INTENTIONS for Americans.
Or you play pattycake and whine about him. Bipartisanship. Comity. Good gentlewoman, gentleman. While we are ground into the dirt and lose America forever.
Where is all this evidence? Where? What are the crimes committed?
Star Member CrispyQ (26,725 posts)
23. +1
We need to get the criminality of Trump on the six & ten o'clock news - all those Sinclair stations. Group all the investigations into Trump under the impeachment umbrella & Sinclair will cover it (them). We need to stop worrying about disaffected republicans & independents & go for the newly engaged voters who turned out in 2018 & the non-voters. It's a much bigger pool. Show them there is a difference between the two parties & that the dems do have backbone & fight.
The House is back in session Monday. Call your rep!
standingtall (2,262 posts)
35. Trump needs to be impeached regardless of the Senate just waiting to beat him in 2020 is the house outsourcing it's responsibility. There is no evidence that impeaching Trump will hurt us in the election anyway, but if we don't impeach Trump and we beat him in 2020. I'm sure there are many in the anti-impeachment crowd who will feel that the Democratic party was vindicated, but it won't be. Even if we get by with letting Trump get off scot-free in the next election cycle the party will pay a price for it long term.
Star Member democrank (9,292 posts)
49. This isn't about winning the next election.
It’s not about guessing what the Senate might do. It’s about our country and everything we used to stand for. Given all that Donald Trump has done, the House has a duty to proceed with impeachment.
oldlibdem (330 posts)
70. have you ever heard of the "south"? How about the "mountain states"?
Trump could murder a child on prime time TV and the hillbillies and rednecks would still love him! There is no way a repuke senator is going to convict and risk getting primaried (sp).
Because the south is racist? or something?
Star Member ProfessorPlum (10,732 posts)
74. That's the whole ****ing point
So, they won't convict an obvious criminal and Russian asset. Don't you think we should make them PAY a ****ing PRICE for doing the wrong thing? Instead, we let them get away with never having to do the wrong thing, because we don't put them in that position.
crazytown (4,727 posts)
99. How many times does it have to be said that impeachment is already underway
The Judiciary Committee are voting to set up the hearings next week.
It is expected to follow the precedent set in 1974 over the committee's procedures during then-President Richard Nixon's impeachment proceedings.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/politics/house-panel-impeachment-probe-steps/index.html
bucolic_frolic (12,830 posts)
101. Why not just announce he resigned?
Repukes make up their own laws and rules every day. Why not us too?
NCLefty (1,057 posts)
112. If impeachment wasn't made for Donald Trump, then it wasn't made for anyone.
And we should just write it out of the Constitution.
