Fri Apr 19, 2019, 05:56 AM

Celerity (7,186 posts)

I have been against impeachment due to the Senate, I no longer am

The crimes and general trashing of the rule of law, the shredding of constitutional, ethical, moral, and legal norms is too great. We simply are bound by the oversight mandate, the upholding of of American values, literally the very act of maintaining of any semblance of normalcy and continuity of lawful processes to a point that we MUST impeach.

If not, we might as well collectively join in with the Trumpians, the Rethugs, the Russians, the racists, the dupes, the shills, the haters, and indeed the CRIMINALS who permeate ALL those rancid legions and just wipe our arses with our Constitution.

Use it or lose it forever. There is NO going back if Trump escapes from justice. At that point most all meaningful, foundational, bedrock checks on the executive branch that truly limit raw, lawless, unaccountable power will have been atomised.

If this failure to do our constitutional, legal, and moral duty is indeed the course of cowardice and expediency we choose, we might as well start calling this monster, and indeed, all other future presidents, by the name and title we will have forged for them....... KING.

188 replies, 10217 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

188 replies	Author	Time	Post
I have been against impeachment due to the Senate, I no longer am (Original post)	Celerity	Apr 2019	OP
ITA	janterry	Apr 2019	#1
Yes...	sacto95834	Apr 2019	#172
And if we don't, it suggests that Trump's transgressions are less important than Bill Clinton's.	flor-de-jasmim	Apr 2019	#2
IMO, the Mueller report may open the floodgates.	Eyeball_Kid	Apr 2019	#133
I agree with most of what you said	leftieNanner	Apr 2019	#170
I think you're right, and he can't escape.	mountain grammy	Apr 2019	#174
Let's do it.	watoos	Apr 2019	#3
No - How it goes	DownriverDem	Apr 2019	#58
Clinton was impeached in 1998	Blecht	Apr 2019	#130
A sham impeachment in Clinton's case	Generic Other	Apr 2019	#134
The impeachment was two years after Clinton's re-election, beginning in December of 1968.	hedda_foil	Apr 2019	#146
I stand corrected	Generic Other	Apr 2019	#163
Abso-effing-lutely!!!	hedda_foil	Apr 2019	#177
Respectfully, I think this analysis suffers from a few omissions and logical fallacies.	better	Apr 2019	#153
Additional fact check	dpibel	Apr 2019	#160
People weren't so enraged.	MoonRiver	Apr 2019	#188
same here..ive been holding off on sending Tom Steyers 'Need To Impeach' postcards...	samnsara	Apr 2019	#4
"KING" is wrong........	MyOwnPeace	Apr 2019	#5
I mean king (or Queen) in the political power sense, a monarch not bound by law or custom.	Celerity	Apr 2019	#10
imperator	crazytown	Apr 2019	#46
works for me, I like the Roman allusion as well	Celerity	Apr 2019	#111
And, another king, Angus was just on CNN, saying	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#47
I think your reference to king was very appropriate	mtnsnake	Apr 2019	#181
I've change my mind as well.	Vinca	Apr 2019	#6
Why can't Congress hold hearings but not call them impeachment?	Funtatlaguy	Apr 2019	#7
There is no reason at all that they can't. That's what I think they should be doing now.	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#8
They need all the underlying evidence including grand jury testimony in order	boston bean	Apr 2019	#66
Is someone finally acknowledging that these things take time?	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#68
It's not just the Mueller scope; Trump's crimes are far more widespread.	lagomorph777	Apr 2019	#127
+1 Make it all public (and go to subjects way beyond the Mueller scope).	lagomorph777	Apr 2019	#126
Investigations	DownriverDem	Apr 2019	#64
Indeed. (nt)	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#70
It's not a binary choice (Impeach/Don't Impeach) Either way, FIRST INVESTIGATE.	lagomorph777	Apr 2019	#122
Research isn't part of the impeachment reasoning process, which appears to be straightforward:	Pope George Ringo II	Apr 2019	#131
Every minute we wait, the affect is diminished. Nothing	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#138
Yes, that's pretty much the problem with impeachment in a nutshell.	Pope George Ringo II	Apr 2019	#141
What?	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#142
You want to forego the exposure of investigation.	Pope George Ringo II	Apr 2019	#161
Head count time.	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#136
Sounds like you are expecting the very, worst of our Democratic leaders.	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#9
and your lack of concern is duly noted	Celerity	Apr 2019	#11
+1, Some posters are making it their duty to be concerned with as much condescension as possible	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#14
...	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#20
Something very fishy about the "never impeachment" mantras.	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#51
Because the Senate!	BeyondGeography	Apr 2019	#60
Yes. To every one of the 22 pose: "so you think	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#71
Let the people see Moscow Mitch work for Putin's whore !!	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#81
It doesn't take a lot of imagination, does it?	BeyondGeography	Apr 2019	#86
+1	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#95
+1,000,000	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#150
THIS !!! I've already thrown a red flag about the amount of FUD pettifogging impeachment.	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#67
What would take so long? Like realistically, say we	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#76
I am 100% with you !!! It would NOT take long at all if you went the simple seemingly slam dunk	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#79
Well, alrighty then. You say it's that simple and quick, so clearly it must be.	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#91
Why do people say it would take so long?	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#92
+1, this poster has no proof that it would take long	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#97
Didn't the GOP bring impeachment to a vote in the	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#106
+1	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#113
Hoyer said no yesterday. CNN saying left in our party	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#135
Ugh...CNN just said Hoyer said impeachment wouldn't be worth it.	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#107
Cummings said on MJ we can look at impeachment. I know he's not the leader but there's	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#151
There's gotta be some end to this. If not just drop	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#154
Yep, drop the whole damn thing if it's going nowhere. I think Pelosi is going to look at the polls	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#158
A false dillema for the win...	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#17
there is nothing subtle about the menace we face, in both the short and long term event horizons	Celerity	Apr 2019	#24
And now we have a red herring.	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#28
I profoundly disagree with your stance and your mischaracterisation of both my intent	Celerity	Apr 2019	#36
You are, of course, entitled to those sesquipedalian expressions of your pique.	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#48
Ah, the things I see from many of a certain stripe.	Celerity	Apr 2019	#56
I call em as I see em.	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#65
'I call em as I see em.'	Celerity	Apr 2019	#73
Nah, you sly one you ... no you don't. The sophistry on this issue is oozing those are ...	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#80
Nailed it, didn't I?	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#85
lol ... you nailed a FUD tag, that's about it.	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#96
Tag, you're it.	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#121
Your post is still 100% spot on. Just ignore the shade!	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#55
Because It Is The Right Thing To Do!	McKim	Apr 2019	#98
If Dems are a "battered wife" they kicked the abusers ass last November...	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#124
Impeachment would at least gimp him	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#12
At this point, more likely Democrats. (nt)	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#22
Will impeachment proceedings cause you to not vote in 2020?	watoos	Apr 2019	#32
Where to start....	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#53
No it's not a rhetorical question, you can't guarantee Red Don wont win so it's irresponsible ...	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#77
That's the definition of 'rhetorical question,' - one that you already have your answer for...	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#83
You claimed Red Don can be impeached in a second term. Keep up with your own words	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#100
No... Watoos said that DT couldn't be impeached in a second term.	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#108
This is false, now you're just making crap up	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#112
No, I clarifying what has been said.	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#120
You wont even quote what you're "clarifying", you made it up	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#152
So no con to impeachment. Good. Scariest idea	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#90
What does "no con to impeachment" mean?	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#110
Blind faith. It's not like something's gonna change. I mean	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#149
Not applicable to my post...	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#165
Impeaching Barr on the other hand	crazytown	Apr 2019	#49
That is indeed another matter. And perhaps a better strategy.(nt)	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#74
This is false and you know it, stop with the FUD ehrnst others have already noticed your pettifoggin	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#69
Like that! At the very least, who in the world, even	Laura PourMeADrink	Apr 2019	#59
Agreed. I see it like this:	Girard442	Apr 2019	#13
+1, its hard for the cops to say "they got away with it" when they did nothing to stop them	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#15
And we have the false dilema of "if we don't impeach, we are doing NOTHING!!"	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#23
You are pettifogging a foundational moral, legal holding to account and erecting an	Celerity	Apr 2019	#26
******** THIS !!!! ********* (New word for the day "Pettifogging" :-) )	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#31
A pettifog is a smaller version of a bigamist.	Girard442	Apr 2019	#184
Hit the nail on the head, didn't I?	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#33
I am NOT a sir, and I do NOT need a thesaurus to express myself in a varied, substantial way	Celerity	Apr 2019	#42
When you know the "nothing" is relative. I already expect sophistry from some :rolleyes:	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#27
Tbh	BigOleDummy	Apr 2019	#30
I'm calling out the bashing of Democrats that isn't valid.	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#34
No one is bashing Pelosi,	watoos	Apr 2019	#38
I didn't say that you were bashing Pelosi.	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#45
At least one has been an accomplice to this very same thing with another criminal president	FiveGoodMen	Apr 2019	#167
VERY well stated Celerity.	FailureToCommunicate	Apr 2019	#16
I have been in favor of impeachment	mnhtnbb	Apr 2019	#18
Well said	mainstreetonce	Apr 2019	#19
You're absolutely correct..."use it or lose it forever."	ElementaryPenguin	Apr 2019	#21
Tie impeachment around the necks of Republicans who shielded The MFer-#45.	NCjack	Apr 2019	#25
I'm now thinking we should use impeachment as the warm-up act.....	lastlib	Apr 2019	#29
+1, we don't have to move for conviction or even removal just get the information out there to	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#35
Agreed	BigOleDummy	Apr 2019	#37
Also, remember that Barr promised to release	watoos	Apr 2019	#41
GOTV for a Congress that shirked its duty is a losing slogan	Ponietz	Apr 2019	#39
Do these assholes	samplegirl	Apr 2019	#40
Yes	watoos	Apr 2019	#43
They think they do. Reality bites.	SammyWinstonJack	Apr 2019	#54
Totally	durablend	Apr 2019	#57
No, they think Red Don was elected fair and square until yesterday	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#82
Where did you hear that his fans changed their mind about him 'yesterday?'	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#89
I know some of his fans that changed their mind yesterday.	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#94
So by "they" you mean "a few fans that you know," not "they" as in any more than that.	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#115
Yes. They want an authoritarian alpha male who will banish all	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#87
Sure, as long as it's THEIR dictator. They all seem to think this will last forever.	catbyte	Apr 2019	#102
Impeachment proceedings now would hurt our 2020 chances.	thesquanderer	Apr 2019	#44
impeachment only takes a simple House majority, conviction and removal is where the 67 vote Senate	Celerity	Apr 2019	#50
I don't understand this logic	durablend	Apr 2019	#61
Yes, his argument either way is "the Dems are just out to get me" but...	thesquanderer	Apr 2019	#75
That narrative you posted has been out there for some time.	watoos	Apr 2019	#62
please see post #75	thesquanderer	Apr 2019	#78
There's no evidence of this, were do you get this from?	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#84
Remember, Clinton's impeachment backfired on the Republicans.	thesquanderer	Apr 2019	#101
Because Clinton was relatively popular with republicans. It was republicans who didn't	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#114
The public wasn't in favor then, and they're not in favor now.	thesquanderer	Apr 2019	#132
How so?	watoos	Apr 2019	#118
Look at 1998.	thesquanderer	Apr 2019	#139
But wait, there might still be a "good Republican" who can help us!	doompatrol39	Apr 2019	#52
Without "Good Republicans" in the Senate	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#128
He's going to say that no matter what	doompatrol39	Apr 2019	#155
Again... I will defer to those Democratic leaders with decades of experience	ehrnst	Apr 2019	#159
Lawrence O'Donnell said about the "politics"	pdsimdars	Apr 2019	#63
For the "never-impeachers", it is incredibly dangerous to assume	bullwinkle428	Apr 2019	#72
Tom Cotton perhaps, he is one smart and evil fuck, plus a vet and a fundie radical	Celerity	Apr 2019	#117
Welcome to the club!	InAbLuEsTaTe	Apr 2019	#88
I'm on the fence but from a pragmatic standpoint look at this excerpt from nate silver's 538 chat	jcgoldie	Apr 2019	#93
This is a HARD PASS from me. For those of us who lived through Clinton's acquittal	Baltimike	Apr 2019	#99
Its false equivalency to compare Red Don to Clinton on POLLING alone. Clinton was relatively	uponit7771	Apr 2019	#103
It's false equivalency to compare impeachment w popularity on the other side	Baltimike	Apr 2019	#105
The House should not even consider what the Senate will or will not do.	honest.abe	Apr 2019	#140
Yes they should.	Baltimike	Apr 2019	#143
Nope... if impeachment fails once, they can re-impeach..	honest.abe	Apr 2019	#144
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure...that'll happen	Baltimike	Apr 2019	#145
We shall see... I think Nancy is coming around to my thinking.	honest.abe	Apr 2019	#147
Oh we will ALL be coming around to your way of thinking...	Baltimike	Apr 2019	#157
The Republicans are blowing up their own party. Trump, via Mitch, is packing the court with ultra	in2herbs	Apr 2019	#104
Illiberal democracy (Orban, Trump,Matteo Salvini, etc. and their ilk/minions are the new template)	Celerity	Apr 2019	#109
Congressional Democrats have several jobs to do...one of those jobs is. Checks and balances.	world wide wally	Apr 2019	#116
Investigate... expose his criminality	radical noodle	Apr 2019	#119
Why should we care about his base?	watoos	Apr 2019	#125
Exactly.	honest.abe	Apr 2019	#148
I never said that he isn't worse than Nixon	radical noodle	Apr 2019	#156
I couldn't...	myohmy2	Apr 2019	#123
Yes, let the Rs who vote to acquit after all the evidence has been presented	treestar	Apr 2019	#129
Well said.	honest.abe	Apr 2019	#137
Well said, well written	The Liberal Lion	Apr 2019	#162
Yes, we should. But so tired of dems having to be the adults in the room and battle for	wiggs	Apr 2019	#164
The House has a duty to impeach; if it doesn't, it will suppress the Dem vote in 2020.	SunSeeker	Apr 2019	#166
I wholeheartedly agree. In addition I think it's a winning strategy.	Pobeka	Apr 2019	#168
Impeach even if it causes us to lose the White House & Senate in 2020?	CaptainTruth	Apr 2019	#169
Kick	orangecrush	Apr 2019	#171
Well said	proud patriot	Apr 2019	#173
I wholeheartedly agree	aintitfunny	Apr 2019	#175
If Hillary Clinton had been sworn in as President	Mr.Bill	Apr 2019	#176
"Impeachable" versus necessity.	TryLogic	Apr 2019	#178
Or the Speaker of the House	FiveGoodMen	Apr 2019	#183
Pardon my Latin, but. . ."GOPus Delendus Est"	DinahMoeHum	Apr 2019	#179
Starting to agree	Pepsidog	Apr 2019	#180
Eloquent.	BlancheSplanchnik	Apr 2019	#182
same here..i was always wanting to wait til we got all the facts but hell we have them NOW	samnsara	Apr 2019	#185
Putin's puppet is a national security threat	suegeo	Apr 2019	#186
It's got to be done.	argyl	Apr 2019	#187

Response to Celerity (Original post)

Fri Apr 19, 2019, 05:58 AM

janterry (2,683 posts)

1. ITA

History has to record that WE did what was right.

I have been against impeachment due to the Senate, I no longer am

1. ITA

172. Yes...

2. And if we don't, it suggests that Trump's transgressions are less important than Bill Clinton's.

133. IMO, the Mueller report may open the floodgates.

170. I agree with most of what you said

174. I think you're right, and he can't escape.

3. Let's do it.

58. No - How it goes

130. Clinton was impeached in 1998

134. A sham impeachment in Clinton's case

146. The impeachment was two years after Clinton's re-election, beginning in December of 1968.

163. I stand corrected

177. Abso-effing-lutely!!!

153. Respectfully, I think this analysis suffers from a few omissions and logical fallacies.

160. Additional fact check

188. People weren't so enraged.

4. same here..ive been holding off on sending Tom Steyers 'Need To Impeach' postcards...

5. "KING" is wrong........

10. I mean king (or Queen) in the political power sense, a monarch not bound by law or custom.

46. imperator

111. works for me, I like the Roman allusion as well

47. And, another king, Angus was just on CNN, saying

181. I think your reference to king was very appropriate

6. I've change my mind as well.

7. Why can't Congress hold hearings but not call them impeachment?

8. There is no reason at all that they can't. That's what I think they should be doing now.

66. They need all the underlying evidence including grand jury testimony in order

68. Is someone finally acknowledging that these things take time?

127. It's not just the Mueller scope; Trump's crimes are far more widespread.

126. +1 Make it all public (and go to subjects way beyond the Mueller scope).

64. Investigations

70. Indeed. (nt)

122. It's not a binary choice (Impeach/Don't Impeach) Either way, FIRST INVESTIGATE.

131. Research isn't part of the impeachment reasoning process, which appears to be straightforward:

138. Every minute we wait, the affect is diminished. Nothing

141. Yes, that's pretty much the problem with impeachment in a nutshell.

142. What?

161. You want to forego the exposure of investigation.

136. Head count time.

9. Sounds like you are expecting the very, worst of our Democratic leaders.

11. and your lack of concern is duly noted

14. +1, Some posters are making it their duty to be concerned with as much condescension as possible

20. ...

51. Something very fishy about the "never impeachment" mantras.

60. Because the Senate!

71. Yes. To every one of the 22 pose: "so you think

81. Let the people see Moscow Mitch work for Putin's whore !!

86. It doesn't take a lot of imagination, does it?

95. +1

150. +1,000,000

67. THIS !!! I've already thrown a red flag about the amount of FUD pettifogging impeachment.

76. What would take so long? Like realistically, say we

79. I am 100% with you !!! It would NOT take long at all if you went the simple seemingly slam dunk

91. Well, alrighty then. You say it's that simple and quick, so clearly it must be.

92. Why do people say it would take so long?

97. +1, this poster has no proof that it would take long

106. Didn't the GOP bring impeachment to a vote in the

113. +1

135. Hoyer said no yesterday. CNN saying left in our party

107. Ugh...CNN just said Hoyer said impeachment wouldn't be worth it.

151. Cummings said on MJ we can look at impeachment. I know he's not the leader but there's

154. There's gotta be some end to this. If not just drop

158. Yep, drop the whole damn thing if it's going nowhere. I think Pelosi is going to look at the polls

17. A false dillema for the win...

24. there is nothing subtle about the menace we face, in both the short and long term event horizons

28. And now we have a red herring.

36. I profoundly disagree with your stance and your mischaracterisation of both my intent

48. You are, of course, entitled to those sesquipedalian expressions of your pique.

56. Ah, the things I see from many of a certain stripe.

65. I call em as I see em.

73. 'I call em as I see em.'

80. Nah, you sly one you ... no you don't. The sophistry on this issue is oozing those are ...

85. Nailed it, didn't I?

96. lol ... you nailed a FUD tag, that's about it.

121. Tag, you're it.

55. Your post is still 100% spot on. Just ignore the shade!

98. Because It Is The Right Thing To Do!

124. If Dems are a "battered wife" they kicked the abusers ass last November...

12. Impeachment would at least gimp him

108. No... Watoos said that DT couldn't be impeached in a second term.

31. THIS !!!! * (New word for the day "Pettifogging" :-) )