US House Speaker Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry

[PointOfViewGun]

More like defense of Trump's pettiness is partisan...

[Lord Thesaurian]

The definition that you have provided makes no mention of requiring a majority, or a plurality, of votes. Just that it requires people voting in free elections. Thus it contradicts your earlier assertions.
Your source talks about how the US is not a pure democracy, which it isn't, but the process of election is still a democratic one.

You continue to falsely insist I’ve contradicted myself, because you have no argument.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

You continue to falsely insist I’ve contradicted myself, because you have no argument.

Sigh. Show me where in the definition that you provided it says that unless you have a majority/plurality of votes then it isn't democratic. I'll make it real simple for you and even quote the relevant parts:
Your original statement, claiming that losing the popular vote means that the election wasn't democratic:

Trump lost the popular vote, so I’m not sure what you mean by democracy.

Here's the definition for democracy which you provided:

Definition of democracy. 1a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority

Here's you straight up lying about what the definition that you provided says:

Thus, invoking “democracy” in support of a man who was not elected by the majority of the people is a poor choice of narrative, if not entirely disingenuous.

The only way your conclusion would make sense is if the word "especially" wasn't there, but alas for you, there it is. Denoting an example, not a condition, of democracy. Thus you draw a wrong conclusion unsupported by the source you yourself provided, which also gives another definition for democracy that also doesn't necessitate a majority or plurality of votes, meaning that even IF the first definition said what you claim it says, there still exists another definition, again in the source you yourself provided, that makes your conclusion from the definitions just plain wrong.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Sigh. Show me where in the definition that you provided it says that unless you have a majority/plurality of votes then it isn't democratic. I'll make it real simple for you and even quote the relevant parts:
Your original statement, claiming that losing the popular vote means that the election wasn't democratic:
Here's the definition for democracy which you provided:
Here's you straight up lying about what the definition that you provided says:
The only way your conclusion would make sense is if the word "especially" wasn't there, but alas for you, there it is. Denoting an example, not a condition, of democracy. Thus you draw a wrong conclusion unsupported by the source you yourself provided, which also gives another definition for democracy that also doesn't necessitate a majority or plurality of votes, meaning that even IF the first definition said what you claim it says, there still exists another definition, again in the source you yourself provided, that makes your conclusion from the definitions just plain wrong.

If you’re going to accuse me of lying and contradicting myself, lying about what I’ve said in order to build a strawman is a decidedly poor way to do it. You’ve already acknowledged the US is not a democracy, so I’m not sure what you seek to accomplish by hurling accusations based on misrepresentations of what I’ve said coupled with the contextual implications of an adverb. In any case, I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to bump my thus far undisputed and unaddressed points back to the top of the page:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This
impeachment and house of cards is collapsing.

This implies there is some margin at which you would agree that Trump is impeachable.

The democrats tried to use the FBI and other agencies to illegally spy on a presidential candidate.

Citation needed

This should be horrifying to anyone who values democracy.

Trump lost the popular vote, so I’m not sure what you mean by democracy.

Definition of democracy. 1a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy


Thus, invoking “democracy” in support of a man who was not elected by the majority of the people is a poor choice of narrative, if not entirely disingenuous.

She
ing won!*

Who? Hillary Clinton? No, she lost the election in 2016.

*Hillary didn't get a majority of the votes either...oops.

She received nearly 3 million more votes than did Donald Trump.

Oh, please, spare me. This one:
Your narrative is that democracy requires winning the popular vote, as proof you gave a definition that does not say that, and tried to paint it as if it does, and completely avoided providing the more blatant one that contradicts your narrative: That regardless of the popular vote, Trump was elected democratically.


There is contradiction between what definition 1a says and what you claim it says. 1b also contradicts your argument that winning without having won the popular vote is somehow not democratic, by making no mention of winning a majority of votes at all.


No, what you said is that Trump's victory despite losing the popular vote is undemoratic.

The US is not a democracy. The Founders were quite clear on that. If it were, Trump would not be President according to the results of the 2016 election. Donald Trump was elected by a constitutional process, just as he was impeached by a constitutional process. You have not established a contradiction between anything I’ve said and the definition of democracy I posted, despite your assertions to the contrary.

It appears that you are unaware that The United States is a democratic republic, not a democracy.

On the contrary, it’s quite ironic that Trump’s defenders are calling the FBI’s investigation into Trump, which Barr’s own prosecutor confirmed was legitimate, and impeachment, a constitutional process, as an assault on “democracy.” The fact that the US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, is how Trump won the presidency in the first place. Given that I’ve defended the electoral college on this very forum, I’m probably the wrong person to try and troll with strawmen about the legitimacy of the 2016 election or the nature of the US political system. Even more ironic, Trump was the one to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the popular vote in 2016. Seems like he’s not a fan of democracy either.


I realize Trump’s defenders have to resort to these kinds of tactics to defend an indefensible president, but I’m sure you can do better than asserting I don’t know how the US political system works. And yes, I’m still waiting for evidence that “The democrats tried to use the FBI and other agencies to illegally spy on a presidential candidate.”

It is undemocratic for someone to win an election in which he received far fewer votes than did his opponent; notwithstanding your furious obfuscations and insistence to the contrary. This is a) obvious, b) entirely consistent with the dictionary definition of democracy I posted, and c) by the design of men who built a republic to avoid the mob rule and factional instability characteristic of democracies. If you’re bothered by how the US electoral system works, then just say so. Indulging whatever compulsion you have to attack me without making an argument isn’t going to get you very far.

[Phier]

This implies there is some margin at which you would agree that Trump is impeachable.

Being "high crimes and misnomers" is totally subjective, sure? I mean look at what they did with literally nothing.

Citation needed

https://apnews.com/f9b05595332242e9809f739d9a185177

WAS ANY OF THIS ILLEGAL?Based on available public information, there’s no evidence of illegal activity by the FBI or the Justice Department.
The FBI routinely uses informants, also known as confidential sources, in a variety of investigations, from violent crimes to white-collar and counterintelligence investigations.
The FISA warrant the FBI obtained to monitor Page was lawfully obtained from a court in October 2016. A memo released by House Republicans in 2018 showed that a judge agreed four times that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. Top FBI and Justice Department officials, including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, signed off on the FISA application.

But wait, there's more!

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...-rules-and-our

The presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has issued a stinging rebuke to the FBI in the wake of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the bureau’s serial abuses in the surveillance of Carter Page.

Oh snap!

Trump lost the popular vote, so I’m not sure what you mean by democracy.

We're a democratic republic, and lets see voter ID but thats racist.

[Vanoi]

A Democratic Republic can be a democracy. They aren't mutually exclusive terms.

[Phier]

A Democratic Republic can be a democracy. They aren't mutually exclusive terms.

And?

[Infidel144]

Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman:
Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate
According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-for-democrats

[Cope]

Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman:
Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate
According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-for-democrats

When you literally impeach the president for obstructing your impeachment but the next day you obstruct your impeachment.

Comical.

[The spartan]

The impeachment articles are not "illegitimate": the House can introduce any allegations that it wants. That doesn't mean that the Senate, much less the voting public, is obliged to accept those allegations. Throwing a tantrum because the Republicans have responded to an ultra-partisan impeachment in an ultra-partisan way will get you nowhere.

Yeah, if only the Dems stopped being so "ultra-partisan" the Republicans would back off and not be partisan themselves. Good one.

Pretty sure the doctrine of "When they go low, we go high" was abandoned as a failure years ago.

[Vanoi]

And?

Just clarifying. Trump may have lost the popular vote but democracy is not simply majority rule. I don't like Trump one bit but you can't call his election undemocratic like Legio suggests.

[Infidel144]

When you literally impeach the president for obstructing your impeachment but the next day you obstruct your impeachment.

Comical.

Even more comical, the guy was, if I am not mistaken, a Democrat witness in the impeachment hearings.

[Cope]

Yeah, if only the Dems stopped being so "ultra-partisan" the Republicans would back off and not be partisan themselves. Good one.

The "inquiry" phase failed to turn public opinion against Trump (which was its intention) precisely because it was so self-evidently, yet poorly, staged-managed. Schiff's open prejudice and flagrant lies combined with the procedure's closed-door dealings, selective leaks and lack of material witnesses to trample over the investigation's credibility.

If you want to comfort yourself that it was all justified because the Republicans are all partisan hacks, that is your prerogative. The net result is that Trump remains largely unscathed.

Pretty sure the doctrine of "When they go low, we go high" was abandoned as a failure years ago.

That was a marketing ploy, not a "doctrine".

[Gaidin]

When you literally impeach the president for obstructing your impeachment but the next day you obstruct your impeachment.

Comical.

Typically there's an investigation. Then an Judiciary committee hearing. Then a judiciary vote. Then a House vote. Then the House delivers it to the Senate as the rules stand. Managers named and all.

There was uhh...literally no investigation into Johnson's actions. On February 21st he dismissed Stanton and appointed Lorenzo Thomas Secretary of War, on February 22 Thadeus Stevens and John Bingham introduced impeachment articles, and on February 24th, Johnson was impeached. No real word on committees. Watergate was literally run by a Watergate Committee and handed off to the Judiciary Committee. Clinton was run by Ken Starr and handed off to the Judiciary Committee. If we wanted to call it that analogously, the Financial Services, Judiciary, Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means formed one massive inquiry in their specialized areas. The House can pretty much have it's Committees run a investigation and hand it off to Judiciary all they want. Thanks Republicans for giving practically every committee the ability to subpoena all they need in their investigations! It's right in the rules and has pretty much been done before. Ask, in all irony, Hillary Clinton.

Oh look, hey, Judiciary got the results and it went from there.

But depending on what the Senate says its court is going to look like, you might want different managers. So...is there going to be structure, or is it going to be a crapshoot? When the House finds out, they name managers and pass the Articles on to the Senate.

[Katsumoto]

But depending on what the Senate says its court is going to look like, you might want different managers. So...is there going to be structure, or is it going to be a crapshoot? When the House finds out, they name managers and pass the Articles on to the Senate.

And this is what the Senate has said its court will look like.

Senator Lindsey Graham put it crisply. “This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly,” he said. “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, speaking to Fox News, was even more explicit. “Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can,” he said. “We have no choice but to take [the impeachment trial] up, but we will be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people who are representing the president in the well of the Senate.”

The two senators appear to need a brief remedial course on their constitutional obligations. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution declares that “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” And when the Senate is sitting “for that Purpose, [senators] shall be on Oath or Affirmation.”

The requirement of a special oath for senators sitting as impeachment triers of fact is unique in the document. Senators don’t swear a special oath to engage in the appropriations process or to consider judicial nominations or to propose health-care legislation. They don’t even swear a special oath to consider a declaration of war or an authorization to use military force. But they do when the Senate sits as the trial forum for impeachment, at which point it becomes a non-legislative tribunal with a wholly different institutional purpose and face.

“Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment,” according to the standing rules of Senate impeachment trials, “the Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter provided to the members of the Senate then present and to the other members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same.”

The oath “hereinafter provided” does not oblige senators to act “in total coordination with the White House counsel and attorneys for the accused”; nor does it commit them to doing “everything I can to make this trial die quickly” and to not “pretend to be a fair juror here.” Rather, the oath that both Graham and McConnell will swear reads as follows: “I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’

If reconciling either Graham’s or McConnell’s comments with the text of this oath seems tricky, that’s because there is nothing impartial about what either man said about his role. A trier of fact is not impartial when he declares publicly that he is coordinating positions with the defendant and that there will be no daylight between their stances. There is also nothing impartial about declaring oneself to be, well, not impartial.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...artial/603658/

[B. W.]

*cringe*

If only everybody reduced their understanding of civics to that of a 10 year old's.

Your statement is insulting and I am triggered by it.

The US is not a democracy. The Founders were quite clear on that. If it were, Trump would not be President according to the results of the 2016 election. Donald Trump was elected by a constitutional process, just as he was impeached by a constitutional process. You have not established a contradiction between anything I’ve said and the definition of democracy I posted, despite your assertions to the contrary.

On the contrary, it’s quite ironic that Trump’s defenders are calling the FBI’s investigation into Trump, which Barr’s own prosecutor confirmed was legitimate, and impeachment, a constitutional process, as an assault on “democracy.” The fact that the US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, is how Trump won the presidency in the first place. Given that I’ve defended the electoral college on this very forum, I’m probably the wrong person to try and troll with strawmen about the legitimacy of the 2016 election or the nature of the US political system. Even more ironic, Trump was the one to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the popular vote in 2016. Seems like he’s not a fan of democracy either.

I realize Trump’s defenders have to resort to these kinds of tactics to defend an indefensible president, but I’m sure you can do better than asserting I don’t know how the US political system works. And yes, I’m still waiting for evidence that “The democrats tried to use the FBI and other agencies to illegally spy on a presidential candidate.”

I made the statement because you keep lamenting the fact that Hillary won the popular vote and lost the election.

BTW, I always find it amusing when Democrats say Hillary should be president because she won the popular vote. HaHa! This is from people who belong to a political party that has super delegates. So ironic and so funny.

As far as the WaPo story, it doesn't square with this 18 minute interview embedded in the link below:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...m_the_cia.html

[Lord Thesaurian]

Being "high crimes and misnomers" is totally subjective, sure? I mean look at what they did with literally nothing.

You may personally consider Democrats’ case for impeachment “nothing,” but that’s not true; certainly not in any literal sense of the word. Hence I asked what your margin of “something” would look like. Republicans don’t seem to think the case is “nothing” either, seeing as how rather than attempting to refute it, they’ve launched a purely procedural defense based on “deep state” conspiracy theories.

https://apnews.com/f9b05595332242e9809f739d9a185177

But wait, there's more!

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...-rules-and-our

Citing a source that says “Based on available public information, there’s no evidence of illegal activity by the FBI or the Justice Department” is certainly a creative way to evidence the opposite claim that “The democrats tried to use the FBI and other agencies to illegally spy on a presidential candidate.” I don’t see how the former supports the latter. If Republicans are genuinely concerned about reforming FISA, maybe they can join Democrat legislative efforts to do so for a change.

We're a democratic republic, and lets see voter ID but thats racist.

I’m not sure what voter ID has to do with anything. I’m fine with people having to show ID to vote. The issue is that you have to pay for IDs, which creates a poll tax. The latter does have a racist history to it. Simple solution is to make IDs free nationwide. Include the latter provision, and I’ll cosponsor your bill.

Just clarifying. Trump may have lost the popular vote but democracy is not simply majority rule. I don't like Trump one bit but you can't call his election undemocratic like Legio suggests.

Not sure how anyone can construe winning an essentially binary election with fewer votes than your opponent as democratic. I’m with Trump on this: his election was definitively undemocratic. It wasn’t supposed to be democratic. Per the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, this is by design. Given the Constitution got Republicans in the White House - twice - they probably shouldn’t rend their garments about “democracy” when the same Constitution gets them impeached.

I made the statement because you keep lamenting the fact that Hillary won the popular vote and lost the election.

I did no such thing. There are lots of reasons to lament the presidency of Donald Trump. A procedural mechanism designed to prevent tyranny of the majority - a tyranny which the founders considered inherent to democracy - is not one of them.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

If you’re going to accuse me of lying and contradicting myself, lying about what I’ve said in order to build a strawman is a decidedly poor way to do it.

What did I lie about?

You’ve already acknowledged the US is not a democracy, so I’m not sure what you seek to accomplish by hurling accusations based on misrepresentations of what I’ve said coupled with the contextual implications of an adverb.

No, I've acknowledged that the US isn't a pure democracy, and stated that Trump was elected democratically. A fact you dispute, and to help you dispute it provided a definition of the term democracy that doesn't actually dispute it. You provided it because you thought that it did, otherwise why provide it at all?
I'm sorry, but under what context could "especially" mean "only"? Granted, English is my 3rd language so I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that the answer is never.

It is undemocratic for someone to win an election in which he received far fewer votes than did his opponent; notwithstanding your furious obfuscations and insistence to the contrary.

Where in the definition of democracy that you provided does it say that?

This is a) obvious,

Oh, well, how could I possibly argue with that? You got me there.

b) entirely consistent with the dictionary definition of democracy I posted,

Neither does it contradict my assertion that Trump was elected democratically, yet you provided it because you clearly think that it does.

and c) by the design of men who built a republic to avoid the mob rule and factional instability characteristic of democracies. If you’re bothered by how the US electoral system works, then just say so. Indulging whatever compulsion you have to attack me without making an argument isn’t going to get you very far.

The US's electoral system is a fitting one for the goal it was designed to serve, I'm certainly not opposed to it and have no problem with it. But it is still a democratic system where the people's votes decide the winner. Note, the people's votes, just like the definition you provided says, not necessarily the majority's. Something you seem to have a hard time understanding.

I see you're new to arguing with Legio_Italica.

It's that obvious?

[Lord Thesaurian]

What did I lie about?
No, I've acknowledged that the US isn't a pure democracy, and stated that Trump was elected democratically. A fact you dispute, and to help you dispute it provided a definition of the term democracy that doesn't actually dispute it. You provided it because you thought that it did, otherwise why provide it at all?

Trump wasn’t elected by the people nor by the majority of them. He was elected by electors. At least in most presidential elections, the popular vote lines up with the electoral vote, because the political parties who pick the electors are pretty good at whipping votes. That didn’t happen for Trump, so it’s either disingenuous or just wrong for Republicans to lean into the whole “assault on democracy” narrative in defense of Trump. Democracy would have lost them the election in the first place. Hence my reminder of the definition of democracy.

I'm sorry, but under what context could "especially" mean "only"? Granted, English is my 3rd language so I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that the answer is never.

I’m not here to lecture anyone on grammar. I did not seek the semantic exclusivity you are claiming I did. You are asserting I lied about the definition of democracy based on something I didn’t do, so your assertion is itself a lie, since you prefer the term.

The US's electoral system is a fitting one for the goal it was designed to serve, I'm certainly not opposed to it and have no problem with it. But it is still a democratic system where the people's votes decide the winner. Note, the people's votes, just like the definition you provided says, not necessarily the majority's. Something you seem to have a hard time understanding.

People’s votes don’t decide the winner. Their votes pick electors chosen by the political parties in each state, who in turn pick the president. There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states, meaning the electors themselves are not required to represent the people. They represent the political parties. States make those rules.

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors

Thus, US presidential elections don’t fit 1b either, regardless of your decision to play semantics about “the majority” vis a vis the popular vote.

[The spartan]

The "inquiry" phase failed to turn public opinion against Trump (which was its intention) precisely because it was so self-evidently, yet poorly, staged-managed. Schiff's open prejudice and flagrant lies combined with the procedure's closed-door dealings, selective leaks and lack of material witnesses to trample over the investigation's credibility.

Your personal interpretation of events aside; Trump supporters were not going to change their opinion even if Trump went ahead and shot that guy on 5th Ave in broad daylight.

If you want to comfort yourself that it was all justified because the Republicans are all partisan hacks, that is your prerogative. The net result is that Trump remains largely unscathed.

If you want to comfort yourself by playing this fake game, that is your prerogative. The net result is a race to the bottom that the Republicans had a head start on.

That was a marketing ploy, not a "doctrine".

Obama should have shoved a SCOTUS nominee down the Senates throat when he had the chance. It was his faulty confidence in the "moderate Republican" that screwed the Dems out of a SCOTUS seat (I guess McConnell had something to do with it too).