Predisent Donald J. Skroob: Episode X: Purple Raining to Impeachment

[guartz]

I think you completely missed the point of my initial post, or else you're talking to a wider audience and not me.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I'm saying democrats are partly to blame for the unwavering stance republicans have for Trump.

[guartz]

Also, legit question. If Pelosi doesn't send articles to the senate, is the impeachment legit?

She probably doesn't want Trump to say "Totally exonerated" interesting strategy she is playing.

[Fiye]

Trump was impeached and nothing in the constitution says when she has to send the articles.

[kuronosan]

Also, legit question. If Pelosi doesn't send articles to the senate, is the impeachment legit?

She probably doesn't want Trump to say "Totally exonerated" interesting strategy she is playing.

Impeachment means charges. Charges needn't be brought forth until trial is negotiated and have an expiration date of the next session, or January of 2021.

Trump isn't exonerated because there's been no trial, it's not their job to determine guilt.

Cops don't arrest you and charge you with a felony without adequate evidence or suspicion and reasonable doubt (unless you're brown) and even then the courts and jury decide guilt and sentencing.

The trial is to determine whether Trump should be fired. Nothing more.

[Fiye]

I'm saying democrats are partly to blame for the unwavering stance republicans have for Trump.

lol

[Kirin]

Few questions.

1. Are Democrats risking SCOTUS coming back and saying that Obstruction of Congress, in this form, doesn't exist by playing the waiting game?

2. As I understand it, the constitution outlines the following lines concerning who controls what during impeachment:

"The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of Impeachment."
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments".

Now aside from the legislative process of bills or resolutions being transferred between houses of congress, Impeachment is a defined political act and not a legal one. What is stopping the Senate from just having a trial anyways?

3. At what point would this current state of Impeachment, but no trial, switch from a political process to a legal one? Does the constitution not guarantee the right to a fair and speedy trial under the law? At what point does Trump gain the right to face his accusers, if at all?

More of a personal question for #4, but I kind of feel like the House is playing with fire and asking for more here. At some point during this withholding of the articles, McConnel has to say "frak it", and promise the slowest and most indepth trial the senate has ever seen - keeping all those presidential candidates gagged and sidelined as jurors throughout Iowa and other early caucus states.

Wouldn't a better strat, considering there is zero chance of conviction in the Senate, be to get this over with so you can have some hope of legislating an agenda before 2020?

[Roranora]

The trial is to determine whether Trump should be fired. Nothing more.

I'm not sure this is an entirely apt description of the acquittal or conviction from the Senate trial. You know an acquittal will be trumpeted as innocence/exoneration.

[Fiye]

Yeah see this is the point where lawyers get involved because nothing is clearly outlined and everything was previously held up by gentlemen agreements practiced in good faith.

[kuronosan]

I'm not sure this is an entirely apt description of the acquittal or conviction from the Senate trial. You know an acquittal will be trumpeted as innocence/exoneration.

What I meant was that the House doesn't determine exoneration. The Senate does, which is why having an actual trial is important.

[guartz]

"The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of Impeachment."
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments".

I have similar question, either the senate can commence with the trial or the impeachment isn't properly concluded because the papers were not submitted.

[Sho]

It’s actually interesting what Pelosi is doing. She’s actually treading water that has never been tread before ever. I wonder if both sides will start to consult historians to help interpret what should happen. Nothing is stopping her or McConnell from playing this staring contest well into 2020.

I guess maybe McConnell will look into passing some sort of resolution to supersede the entire thing eventually. They can then turn around and say that the Dems manipulated the entire process from the start.

[archibaldcrane]

There should be. A lot more. There also should be a much larger effort in getting people to see beyond their differences to vote in unison against this guy.

It’s a sad state when irrational, ignorant, willfully ignorant, and politically expedient people on the right vote as they should, while the rational, informed, educated and intelligent people on the left can’t get it together and do the same. I can’t be the only person seeing this.

Libertarian Gary Johnson got over 3x as many votes as Green Jill Stein did.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Fiye]

It’s actually interesting what Pelosi is doing. She’s actually treading water that has never been tread before ever. I wonder if both sides will start to consult historians to help interpret what should happen. Nothing is stopping her or McConnell from playing this staring contest well into 2020.

If the historians they consulted during the impeachment proceeding are any measurement to go by they'll be just as partisan. I think either the SCOTUS will force the issue, Mitch and Pelosi come to terms how to proceed, or nothing happens.

[Yabby]

It’s actually interesting what Pelosi is doing. She’s actually treading water that has never been tread before ever. I wonder if both sides will start to consult historians to help interpret what should happen. Nothing is stopping her or McConnell from playing this staring contest well into 2020.

I guess maybe McConnell will look into passing some sort of resolution to supersede the entire thing eventually. They can then turn around and say that the Dems manipulated the entire proceeds from the start.

McConnell can't touch shit. He can't have any impact on the House.... Only people that can force anything is the courts.

[guartz]

ah the tweets are from GEOTUS are great:
"Pelosi feels her phony impeachment HOAX is so pathetic she is afraid to present it to the Senate, which can set a date and put this whole SCAM into default if they refuse to show up! The Do Nothings are so bad for our Country!"

[Fiye]

[Dimmauk]

I wonder if Merrick Garland thinks it's hilarious that Pelosi is putting everything on hold.

[Fiye]

[Tarage]

In the interest of moving this along, I decided to investigate guartz's claim that he had answered the Sandy Hook question Fiye put forward.

As far as I can see, this is the first instance of Fiye putting forth the question: https://www.bluegartr.com/threads/13...ment?p=7286102

This occurred on December 4th 2019, which makes it pretty easy to look at all of guartz's posts since that date. But before I do that, let's look at what was said and what the reply was to the initial question.

Ah, I was wondering who the gullible people were these journalists were trying to fool.

Please tell me the truth behind sandy hook.

You telll me how Trump had hookers pee on a bed first.

I guess I'll never know what truly happened.

I don't count answering a question with another question as providing an answer, so we'll move on to the next instance I've found: https://www.bluegartr.com/threads/13...=1#post7286463

Technically this is not Fiye asking the question, but since guartz responds, I'll go ahead and quote it again.

The problem with guartz is he's watched plenty of people speak for hours on topics. That he has researched any topic to some degree is true but the problem is he dug himself into so many conspiracy theories that it has shaped his entire world view.

There's a reason why I want him to talk about Sandy Hook.

You don't. You really don't.

Guartz cherry picks his topics a lot like Ben Shapiro. I imagine he's rather intelligent and capable of intelligent thought, but he chooses instead to engage in nonsensical threads of reasoning in order to win an argument.

In this example, constitutional scholars and lawyers are offering credible reasons for impeachment and congressfolk who previously would have agreed with regard to Clinton's impeachment are throwing themselves on the fence posts for Trump because they want to win. They want their power to pass their agenda.

This is not the hill they should die on. Not only does it set a dangerous precedent, Trump is very obviously guilty.

Guartz doesn't cherry pick his information. If that were the case we could systematically dismantle his arguments as they came up. The problem is he's bought into several layers of conspiracy.

Guartz can show you the work. Guartz can cite people on it. But to us its all nonsense because it serves some greater conspiracy that the deep state is trying to undermine Trump.

Very insightful actually, but I can clear it up a bit since you are half right:

I was normal kid until I started paying attention to politics under Bush jr. The weapons of mass destruction, they are east, west, north and south. Tinfoil hat came out then. Lefties were on board back then, chomsky's manufactured consent was quoted religiously. I was obsessed with neocons a decade ego, I wanted to understand them more then anything, and what I learned was that those were dynastic beliefs - born from universities and intellectuals like Strauss and propagated in American politics by think tanks and people who did not believe the things they said. They called it 'noble lies' in vain of Plato. The ideas were simple enough, politics was mob control and what was is the best way to control mobs. It was super critical of American liberalism(as in classical liberal sense) and that it contained seeds of it's own destruction. It wasn't a guide, per say, more like political/philosophical hermeneutics. So this, ah, quest for understanding and my problem say you say, sort of detached me from politics. A good way to explain it is something like; the basics of epistemology is that we have built in interpretative structures that paints reality for us - and it's not a mechanical system that reacts deterministically, as in, it's not just the stimulus response chain - (I think it was chomsky that once suggested that evolutionary purpose of speech was to influence thoughts), it's more like an embedded system of individual cognition based on experiences. That's why a person can look at multiple cars with slight variations and still understand they are cars. And why I can look at current politics and say they are propaganda.

Hope that clears it up a bit.

Still no answer. Answers to other questions yes, but not THE question. Let's go forward again: https://www.bluegartr.com/threads/13...=1#post7288239

it's funny how you can't come up with a better snide remark that makes sense. Tbh I feel for ya, being lied to for almost 4 years gotta hurt.

Tell me how I've been lied to about Sandy Hook.

Let me tell you about the Russian collusion conspiracy you believed for 4 years.

If you can't tell everyone here about the truth behind what happened at Sandy Hook how can we take you at your word. You're literally withholding information that could enlighten us.

Sadly guartz does not reply to this post with a question, comment, or anything. Another dead end. But Fiye doesn't let it go, and neither shall we: https://www.bluegartr.com/threads/13...=1#post7288786

Damn you're just gonna ignore me like that? Tell us about Sandy Hook my man I know you got the details!

Not sure why you insist on bringing up a tragedy like that... to win internet fights? It's not even relevant to discussion. Stay Classy commie.

It hasn't stopped you from discussing other conspiracy theories that are entirely unrelated to President Donald Trump so I'm curious as to why that would stop now.

On to the next, where we might actually get something resembling an answer: https://www.bluegartr.com/threads/13...=1#post7289020

I'll bring you truth and set you free Fiye

Tell me about Sandy Hook

It's an old story, you get people who become so angry and bitter at the perceived unfairness of life that they justify murdering as justice. People like that existed since time immemorial. We have bible stories about it.

Don't feel closer to the truth.

Neither do I. I suppose he could be saying that he thinks it actually happened, but responding with the phrase 'story' brings that into question. Does he think it's a story? Or does he think it's real? Next:

https://www.bluegartr.com/threads/13...=1#post7290834

It's unfortunate, because I know you want to believe your opinion so badly and yet here we are - entertaining a conspiracy so shallow you couldn't get your nose wet.

There's a reason why I keep asking him about Sandy Hook.

Huh, 7th time you bring this up. Pretty sure I answered you.

The rules on these forums define trolling a certain way, can you remind me what they are?

You haven't and you've dodged the question every single time.

I was gonna link where I did reply, but that's just silly. I'll let you continue in your fantasy where you believe that the guy who thinks lizard people are real somehow influences my perspective on the world.

But he does. Directly and indirectly. You repeat talking points from far-right conspiracy theory sites... Where do you think they get it from? You are the middle man of a right-winged human centipede cuttlefish eating chain.

You can't because you never replied you fucking goober.

Well, you're wrong on both accounts there. This was only the 6th time he's brought it up, and the 5th time he's directly asked. And no, you haven't answered. You've danced around the topic, you've made allegories, but I looked at every post you've made between December 4th and today and not once did you give an actual answer.

So I propose the following: You have five posts to explain if you think Sandy Hook was faked or not. A simple yes or no answer will suffice. If you don't, I think you should be blocked for trolling until you are willing to answer. This sound fair to everyone?

[Yabby]

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Truthfully I think this is all he should post.