As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

[Impeachment] for ... Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

1414244464797

Posts

  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Every poll since the impeachment inquiry has started has shown an erosion of trump support, if the GOP was going to rally they'd uhh be rallying.

    Even Rasmussen had Trump at 50% favoring his impeachment AND removal from office.

    yeah we're getting to "this is bad news... FOR OBAMA" territory with expecting Trump to recover here.

    I mean on top of the impeachment he's getting hammered for his completely insane response to syria and he's hemorrhaging employees. Ships got some holes and the rats noticed.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Every poll since the impeachment inquiry has started has shown an erosion of trump support, if the GOP was going to rally they'd uhh be rallying.

    It hasn’t been long enough yet.

    While it’s true that support for impeachment is rising and even that Fox poll showed Trump’s base is turning on him a bit, there hasn’t been enough time yet for it to be a trend or not. For all we know, Trump could bounce back just like he did after the shutdown.

    My bet is that the GOP is watching the polls very closely, especially their base. If they keep bleeding support among non-college white, rural males, especially in red or purple states, and it trends into well into November, they are gonna be thinking really hard about how much they want Trump in 2020.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Every poll since the impeachment inquiry has started has shown an erosion of trump support, if the GOP was going to rally they'd uhh be rallying.

    It hasn’t been long enough yet.

    While it’s true that support for impeachment is rising and even that Fox poll showed Trump’s base is turning on him a bit, there hasn’t been enough time yet for it to be a trend or not. For all we know, Trump could bounce back just like he did after the shutdown.

    My bet is that the GOP is watching the polls very closely, especially their base. If they keep bleeding support among non-college white, rural males, especially in red or purple states, and it trends into well into November, they are gonna be thinking really hard about how much they want Trump in 2020.

    I dunno man every new day there is a new and even more insane angle to this. Like when the shutdown was over it was over, the impeachment isn't going away right now.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    I think some temporal context may be a useful reminder.

    The official Impeachment Inquiry began 23 days ago.
    The government shutdown ended 38 weeks ago.
    Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House 42 weeks ago.

  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    To defend Mulvaney, his rambling, defensive, idiotic spectacle today is virtually interchangeable with any performance from a Trump surrogate or Trump himself.

    The new Trump brand.

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Former Newsweek writer with the full denial:

    Delivering the aid money they were legally required to only after they were caught is not a great argument that they did not threaten Ukraine.

  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Former Newsweek writer with the full denial:

    Delivering the aid money they were legally required to only after they were caught is not a great argument that they did not threaten Ukraine.

    Every spokesperson for this godforsaken administration.

    A Narcissist's Prayer

    That didn't happen.

    And if it did, it wasn't that bad.

    And if it was, that's not a big deal.

    And if it is, that's not my fault.

    And if it was, I didn't mean it.

    And if I did...

    You deserved it.

  • Options
    SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular
    Maybe I’m crazy but I don’t think what Mulvaney said will do much. What he admitted to was foreign policy business as usual, was it not? That’s legal as far as I know. It’s specifically enlisting help to win an election that’s the crime.

    The strategy will be to coalesce around the fact that the quid pro quo was around something non-election related, not Joe and Hunter Biden.

    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    If only we had on video him saying something completely different.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    I think some temporal context may be a useful reminder.

    The official Impeachment Inquiry began 23 days ago.
    The government shutdown ended 38 weeks ago.
    Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House 42 weeks ago.

    I don't believe you.

    giphy.gif

  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    If only we had on video him saying something completely different.

    Maybe the most stressful part of this entire presidency is all the fucking gaslighting.

  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Spaffy wrote: »
    Maybe I’m crazy but I don’t think what Mulvaney said will do much. What he admitted to was foreign policy business as usual, was it not? That’s legal as far as I know. It’s specifically enlisting help to win an election that’s the crime.

    The strategy will be to coalesce around the fact that the quid pro quo was around something non-election related, not Joe and Hunter Biden.

    CNN and other outlets ran with "Mulvaney admits quid pro quo" that is a damaging as fuck headline. There is a reason the same day he had to come out and say "Whoa hold on I didn't say what I did..."

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    The smart thing to do would be shut up about all this, but every single person involved seems so keen on just throwing themselves under the bus at lightspeed. The only people who 'believe' it when they backpedal are the ones who want them to get away with it/willfully ignorant.

  • Options
    SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    Well Trump's admitted quid pro quo favor was for dirt on Biden, not that tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, so Mulvaney's new statement is irrelevant.

    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
  • Options
    Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    Not sure if it was mentioned, forgive me if so, but Rick Perry is the latest to resign... Hmmm wonder why

  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Spaffy wrote: »
    Maybe I’m crazy but I don’t think what Mulvaney said will do much. What he admitted to was foreign policy business as usual, was it not? That’s legal as far as I know. It’s specifically enlisting help to win an election that’s the crime.

    The strategy will be to coalesce around the fact that the quid pro quo was around something non-election related, not Joe and Hunter Biden.

    CNN and other outlets ran with "Mulvaney admits quid pro quo" that is a damaging as fuck headline. There is a reason the same day he had to come out and say "Whoa hold on I didn't say what I did..."

    Like the world’s dumbest episode of Law and Order.

    “I confess to the crimes! Deal with it!”

    *handcuffs go on*

    “Wait you can’t! I never confessed to anything!”

  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    Let me know when someone actually puts the cuffs on.
    We can have written confessions, we can have video, and they can still walk.

    Commander Zoom on
  • Options
    SoggybiscuitSoggybiscuit Tandem Electrostatic Accelerator Registered User regular
    edited October 2019

    In the midst of all this, Trump is blatantly and directly using his power to enrich himself. This is just another direct abuse of power.

    Is the only time he is NOT committing a crime when he sleeps?

    Soggybiscuit on
    Steam - Synthetic Violence | XBOX Live - Cannonfuse | PSN - CastleBravo | Twitch - SoggybiscuitPA
  • Options
    VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular

    In the midst of all this, Trump is blatantly and directly using his power to enrich himself. This is just another direct abuse of power.

    Is the only time he is NOT committing a crime when he sleeps?

    Dreaming of the perfect crime

  • Options
    FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular

    In the midst of all this, Trump is blatantly and directly using his power to enrich himself. This is just another direct abuse of power.

    Is the only time he is NOT committing a crime when he sleeps?

    If dreaming of committing crimes doesn't count as committing crimes, then sure.

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    If only we had on video him saying something completely different.

    That’s the thing though; we don’t. He was very specifically not talking about the Hunter Biden issue, he was talking about the DNC server, which doesn’t have anything to do with a Presidential candidate potentially running against him, which is what this brouhaha is all about.

    Like, the headlines are gonna hurt him, but I don’t think anyone who actually reads what he said is gonna he swayed on impeachment either way..

    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
  • Options
    MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Spaffy wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    If only we had on video him saying something completely different.

    That’s the thing though; we don’t. He was very specifically not talking about the Hunter Biden issue, he was talking about the DNC server, which doesn’t have anything to do with a Presidential candidate potentially running against him, which is what this brouhaha is all about.

    Like, the headlines are gonna hurt him, but I don’t think anyone who actually reads what he said is gonna he swayed on impeachment either way..

    The vast majority of the public will not be interested in that level of nuance. They will see headlines that this doofus admitted to the quid pro quo and after that it doesn’t matter.

  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Spaffy wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    If only we had on video him saying something completely different.

    That’s the thing though; we don’t. He was very specifically not talking about the Hunter Biden issue, he was talking about the DNC server, which doesn’t have anything to do with a Presidential candidate potentially running against him, which is what this brouhaha is all about.

    Like, the headlines are gonna hurt him, but I don’t think anyone who actually reads what he said is gonna he swayed on impeachment either way..

    The vast majority of the public will not be interested in that level of nuance. They will see headlines that this doofus admitted to the quid pro quo and after that it doesn’t matter.

    Yep hilariously the GOP is now victim to their scandal being easy to explain, and their bullshit being hard to parse.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular

    In the midst of all this, Trump is blatantly and directly using his power to enrich himself. This is just another direct abuse of power.

    Is the only time he is NOT committing a crime when he sleeps?

    Can the rest of the G-7 veto his pick?

  • Options
    SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Spaffy wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    If only we had on video him saying something completely different.

    That’s the thing though; we don’t. He was very specifically not talking about the Hunter Biden issue, he was talking about the DNC server, which doesn’t have anything to do with a Presidential candidate potentially running against him, which is what this brouhaha is all about.

    Like, the headlines are gonna hurt him, but I don’t think anyone who actually reads what he said is gonna he swayed on impeachment either way..

    The vast majority of the public will not be interested in that level of nuance. They will see headlines that this doofus admitted to the quid pro quo and after that it doesn’t matter.

    I understand that, but the dissonance for me comes from people in this thread who do know what it means acting like he said otherwise. I read this thread to follow what’s happening, not made up stuff I get enough of from Reddit.

    I also think it’s not long before the GOP start making coherent comparisons with what Mulvaney said to plenty of other legitimate uses of Presidential pressure to affect foreign policy, and so acting like this is some kind of gotcha could be dangerous for us. We should be focusing on the Biden thing, that’s the crime, diluting it just gets us Mueller all over again.

    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
  • Options
    VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The reason why today matters and feels different is because of who said this.

    Trump has regularly admitted to crimes but been surrounded by people who defect, downplay, deny, distort, or otherwise do not tell the truth. There are exceptions (see: Giuliani) but for the most part the Trump administration is full of handlers trying to keep the wheels on.

    What happened today was someone who wasn’t Trump admitting to the crime with the same brazen strategy. The cat’s out of the bag now and it’s much harder to backpedal and explain nuance when someone has confirmed it’s exactly what we thought it was.

    Get ready for Friday, it’s gonna be a ride.

  • Options
    OptyOpty Registered User regular
    As far as I know, the sticking point here is that while the President is allowed to pressure other countries he's not allowed to do it with money that's been promised to that country already by Congress. By doing that he broke the law, it doesn't matter what the reason for it was.

  • Options
    Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    he was talking about the DNC server, which doesn’t have anything to do with a Presidential candidate potentially running against him, which is what this brouhaha is all about.

    I feel like it's not just about Biden, it's about everything they were trying to extract out of Ukraine, the server being part of it. And Trump didn't want that server because he was fighting corruption, he wanted it because it had great potential to directly help him politically (and consequently his campaign) and damage the democrats if he got it. Mick can try and split hairs over it all day, but the server and Biden meant the same thing politically. Because as has been said often the last few weeks, if Trump was so concerned about corruption and cleaning up the foreign interference into the 2016 election, he could have very easily asked the FBI to look into it.

    Dark_Side on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Opty wrote: »
    As far as I know, the sticking point here is that while the President is allowed to pressure other countries he's not allowed to do it with money that's been promised to that country already by Congress. By doing that he broke the law, it doesn't matter what the reason for it was.

    The president has a lot of leeway in their timetable for most things

    The issue here is Trump used that aid money as leverage for a criminal act, soliciting an illegal contribution from a foreign entity

  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    The G-7 thing enrages me just as much as the Ukraine scandal and is just as impeachable. Totally blatant corruption. But then I'm one of those who thought he was impeachable day 1 for violating the emoluments clause, and for some reason the Democrats have always seemed pretty committed to just letting that one go by.

    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
  • Options
    Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    Is there anyone left from the his first cabinet besides Ben Carson?

  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Is there anyone left from the his first cabinet besides Ben Carson?

    Betsy DeVos

  • Options
    BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    Is there anyone left from the his first cabinet besides Ben Carson?

    Betsy DeVos

    That level of inhumanity is hard to put down.

    And outside of trying to get some leverage for her bro-in-law to buy military aircraft (manned or UAVs) for his PMC in her first year, she's kept her shit on the downlow.

    No matter where you go...there you are.
    ~ Buckaroo Banzai
  • Options
    ArcTangentArcTangent Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    Opty wrote: »
    As far as I know, the sticking point here is that while the President is allowed to pressure other countries he's not allowed to do it with money that's been promised to that country already by Congress. By doing that he broke the law, it doesn't matter what the reason for it was.

    Not really, although that is a compounding factor. Government corruption in general hinges on using the authority given to you to act not in the interests of those you represent but your own. The executive has a shitload of leeway on how they, well, execute legislature, especially in relation to foreign affairs. The problem here is multi-fold. First, that they were demanding them do a specific thing, but even tat specific thing could have theoretically been fine had the purpose been rational and the outcome something that benefits the United States writ large. It could be defended then as acting in the interests of the country, which is the argument that they're using. But it's neither of those things. There's virtually no evidence of any significant wrongdoing, and it directly targets a political rival, so there are very few possible rationales to answer the question "Why THIS?" It's not for national interests, but personal gain, same as if he was providing government contracts and favors to personal friends or those lavishing him personally with money, gifts, and favors... which is also happening all over the place.

    That's just the humdrum corruption issue though. Biden is a private citizen right now. His only relationship to Trump is as a political rival. The head of Ukraine is a foreign national. He is requesting a foreign national do something to damage someone whose only relationship to him is a political rival. That is super SUPER against FEC law. The Trumpworld excuse for this is that it has nothing to do with the campaign at all, that's just a coincidence. That's a transparently awful argument, which is why it has problems gaining traction even in the fever swamp.

    ArcTangent on
    ztrEPtD.gif
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Is there anyone left from the his first cabinet besides Ben Carson?
    Nobody remembers Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, wife of McConnell.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Is there anyone left from the his first cabinet besides Ben Carson?
    Nobody remembers Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, wife of McConnell.

    FYI, also either under investigation or they want her to be under investigation for corruption.

    Because of course she is.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    OremLK wrote: »
    The G-7 thing enrages me just as much as the Ukraine scandal and is just as impeachable. Totally blatant corruption. But then I'm one of those who thought he was impeachable day 1 for violating the emoluments clause, and for some reason the Democrats have always seemed pretty committed to just letting that one go by.

    There's been lawsuits about that since like day 1. The whole thing is working it's way through the courts still.

  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    OremLK wrote: »
    The G-7 thing enrages me just as much as the Ukraine scandal and is just as impeachable. Totally blatant corruption. But then I'm one of those who thought he was impeachable day 1 for violating the emoluments clause, and for some reason the Democrats have always seemed pretty committed to just letting that one go by.

    The reason is that impeachment is political, and that particular crime just had absolutely no traction outside the left.

  • Options
    sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    I think I’m going to spend my Christmas vacation in DC protesting on the steps of Congress.

This discussion has been closed.