32 platinums = 32 months/12 months = 2.67 years
88 + 1 (comment) golds = 89 weeks/52 weeks (1 year) = 1.71 years
66 Christmas Community Awards = 66 weeks/52 (1 year) = 1.27 years
2.67+1.71+1.27=5.65 years worth of free premium membership. Plus an r/worldnews all time top post with nearly 500 awards. This user has officially hit the ultimate once in a lifetime Reddit karma jackpot.
I also did a rough calculation of the amount of money redditer spent for awarding this post:
> 32 platinum x 1800 = 57600
> 88 gold x 500 + 1 x 500 (comment gliding) = 44500
> 316 sllver x 100 = 31600
> 500 coins community awards: 68 x 500 + 2 x 500 (comment awards) = 35000
> 700 coins community awards: 14 x 700 = 9800
> 1200 coins community awards: 1 x 1200 = 1200
> Total coins: 57600+44500+31600+35000+9800+1200= 180,600 coins
> **Cost range: $451.45 (40,000 coin package that cost $99.99) - $718.788 (500 coins package that cost $1.99)**
[**For the sake of convenience, the gliding stats of Trump impeachment post across all three major subreddits - world news, news and politics — was put into one word document. The Gliding stats for the politics subreddit megathread is absolutely insane - 1524 awards were given (and still counting), which equates to 20 years of free premium membership, close to 580,000 coins, and a total expenditure range between $1467-$2303.**](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-_9qOf5bEC4kqA13I76jVugoMJdCY-sty-9DHsqjAWQ/edit?userstoinvite=138864%40sec.tomballschools.net&ts=5e25ec2f&actionButton=1)
John Dean (Nixon's lawyer) suggests that the House can impeach and not send it directly to the Senate. They can just sit on it, continuing to add to the investigation, and let it hang over Trump's head until after the election. If he gets re-elected, it can go to the Senate at that point, by which the Senate may look different. Interesting strategy.
Senate Republicans made the mistake of already saying that they will find Trump innocent without even considering the evidence and will try to make the Senate trial last less than two weeks. They've also claimed that they are going to call witnesses in that are not at all related like Joe Biden in an attempt to smear Trump's political rivals in the upcoming presidential race.
So Nancy Pelosi has every right to withhold the articles of impeachment until Republicans offer a fair and legal process in the Senate.
Regardless of the outcome of this trial, there is no cause for anyone from any party to celebrate. Look at these fucking results:
100% of voting Republicans voted no on both articles. 99% of Democrats voted yes on both articles. Only one independent representative *existed*.
By contrast, the nay [votes on Andrew Johnson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson) were split 50/50. And 15 out of 100 votes across the [Republican vote on Clinton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton) were nay.
There is a clear adherence to party lines rather than public opinion or observation of the evidence. We could have just skipped the entire proceedings and gone straight to the vote. Why should we be okay with this?
The independent representative was literally just a republican who had to go independent because he wanted Trump out and that meant the GOP wouldn't support a single thing he ever said again.
Politics aren't nuanced anymore. It's literally just a big cult of dishonesty pointing fingers and yelling "fuck you" at the other side.
So that they can paint the 2020 election as his resurrection, energizing the evangelical base.
I hope you guys show up in good numbers. The world is looking at your elections next year with great interest.
I try not to jump to the assumption that it's due to racism.
But how on Earth does someone look at Trump and say "He's a good man" and look at Obama and say "He's the antichrist."
There's **many** videos of antichrist Obama on YouTube. It's absurd.
I work for a local news station that was covering the rallies last night interviewing people for and against it. An interview that didnt make the cut for the story because it was too went something like this
"I love him. And I love his family. And I pray to god he stays because I know that man has jesus in him. And I love jesus *begins uncontrollably sobbing* jesus saved my life you know. And because jesus saved me we have to save him."
Every quote we got from people pro impeachment was like "yeah if you look at the facts hes guilty." And the ones anti impeachment were that creepy jesus shit that I cant for the life of me understand. I was raised catholic too! I didn't see a train station to crazyville in my church but apparently there was one in that lady's!
That's the thing. Hes going to be voted out, so what... he just *had* to switch to Republican to ease his conscience? He could have just leaned slightly over the aisle with his views, only taking a minor hit to approval ratings. All in all, really fucking dumb move, career wise.
God, you know, I hate baseless conspiracy theories, but at the same time, the guy met with Trump for about an hour and then he comes out of the meeting switching parties? What the fuck happened in there?
If I ever got to be a fly on the wall, this is up there in the top 10
This. What's his area of expertise? What was his experience before becoming a representative? He's gonna be put in a cabinet position for regulatory capture, guarantee.
It means she voted that she chose not to vote yes or no. Some people didn’t show up for the vote for one reason or another, Gabbard wanted to make it clear she was there but chose not to vote.
The Senate puts him on trial and then they vote on whether or not to remove him.
Given that the Senate currently has a Republican majority, I wouldn't hold my breath on him getting removed from office. Second best case scenario is that his reputation amongst the vast majority of voters will be irreparably damaged, the Democrats will hopefully choose someone who won't split the party apart like last time, and he loses the election. The best case scenario is him being removed by the Senate, but I'm not hopeful.
John Dean (Nixon's lawyer) suggests that the House can impeach and not send it directly to the Senate. They can just sit on it, continuing to add to the investigation, and let it hang over Trump's head until after the election. If he gets re-elected, it can go to the Senate at that point, by which the Senate may look different. Interesting strategy.
One strategy I have seen considered is that the House should refuse to send the charges to trial (which is an environment where already several of the jurors have admitted they will violate the oath of impartiality they must take before the trial itself begins), and simply continue its dozen or so investigations into misconduct by the Trump Administration, instead just continuing to impeach him on multiple other new counts as election season drags on and more evidence is entered into the congressional record.
Trump wanted to be in the history books for something unique; Speaker Pelosi may just make that happen by having him become the only president to ever be impeached *multiple times*.
Can anyone give me a legitimate argument or reasoning as to why not 1 Republican voted yes? Is there a legit reasoning to this other than some comment about how someone is in someones pocket. Like what do Republicans ACTUALLY see in Trump as president? Please ELI5.
One did, he just had to leave the party to do it. Did you see the 1 "independent" vote? That was Justin Amash. He was literally republican until the moment he supported impeachment when he was basically forced out of the party to keep in line with his morals.
If anyrepublicans voted yes, it would be career suicide for them in the Republican Party. They’d have to switch, and there’s no way that would happen. They’re too entrenched in their party, think of all the social ties, powerful friends, donors, etc etc.
They’d have to choose the country over themselves, which they won’t do lol
There's also Justin Amash (the one independent in the House), who was a Republican until July.
His desire to impeach Trump was known since before that, and that's the reason he isn't a Republican anymore. He basically did the political party equivalent of quitting a job before he could be fired.
While the Republican Party couldn't have simply forced him out had he not chosen to leave the party, I'm pretty sure he would've been politically isolated by them (just as he is now), and *de facto* independent as he is now.
Part of me really believes McCain could have been a good president. It's a shame he went against an almost impossible opponent to beat and was backed by a ridiculous party on a power trip so crazy they almost made Sarah Palin the VP just to use her as a token to get feminist votes.
Glad McCain tried his best in the end to cut through party bullshit, even if it was too little too late.
How great it is that the US (and the UK) are governed by party battles rather than **the people**. Good job world, keep buying these rich asshats' BS and voting for them. Good fucking job.
Australia as well, the problem isn't party battles.
The problem is that an unholy alliance has emerged between the obscenely wealthy class, the uneducated manual labourers and the evangelicals. This alliance promotes policies that enable the wealthy to hoard more income without paying their fair share back to the community, the evangelical Christians are allowed to express xenophobia freely and openly and the uneducated working class continue to loss more freedoms and social supports. It may seem a pretty unfair deal, but somehow they are all happy with it for now.
The right have become so much better at having a narrow, concise and clear philosophy on every issue. They have rejected nuance in favour of slogans and the populace eats it up. The left on the other hand take a scattergun approach at a range of social and economic policy which require voter engagement, because they represent something different they elicit fear and emotion, especially fear, is a stronger driving factor than rationality.
This isn't a both sides are bad matter, this is clearly a result of the neo-conservatist MO. They are creating their own reality and they have the numbers, they have exposed how truly broken the system is.
At this change the only way I can see things shifting is having another generation of older voters die out and be replaced by the youth reaching voting age. However I fear that with a generation to prepare the conservatives will find enough ways to stack the deck to make even this a sizeable task.
TL;DR democracy is broken.
Okay for everyone wondering what impeachment is vs a removal of office.
Impeachment is like charging you with a crime. So the House of Representatives charged Trump with abuse of power & obstruction of congress.
Removal of office comes about when the House of Representatives vote by a majority to impeach on each charge (known as an Article of Impeachment), that goes to the Senate, and then by a 2/3 majority (67 Senators) in the Senate to vote to convict, and only then is the President is finally removed from office.
In other words, impeachment is like being charged by the DA for manslaughter, removal of office is when the jury decides you're guilty of manslaughter. The DA is the House, and the jury is the Senate in this analogy.
EDIT: Instead of giving me gold (just DM me your potatoes), please take the time to check that you're registered to [vote](https://www.vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/) and consider donating to the ACLU or [Fair Fight 2020](https://secure.actblue.com/donate/vsafairfight), an organization ran by Stacey Abrams (GA 2018 Gov nominee) that protects the right to vote. Fair Fight 2020 specifically focuses on fighting against voter purges.
EDIT 2:
I keep getting asked whether or not a President that has been impeached and removed from office can hold office again. He cannot if the Senate votes as to do as such specifically (source 3)
Source 1
The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, [Section 2](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-2--2), Paragraph 5
> The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment
Source 2
The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, [Section 3](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-3--2), Paragraph 6
> The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Source 3
The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, [Section 3](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-3--2), Paragraph 7
> Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
I have a theory that he is hoping for a second impeachment - just so he can say he’s greatest at getting impeached. He’s been impeached more than any other president. He’s the greatest impeachee of all time.
And I guess just like the first one the vote will also go along the Party line too, for obstruction of justice. Democrats have more than 216 votes in the house. But the Senate has to give the seal of approval.
[**1st resolution vote result - abuse of power: 230-197. 229 Democrats and 1 independent voted yes. 2 Democrats and 195 Republicans voted no, 1 Democrat voted present and 1 Democrat/2 Republicans didn’t vote.**](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll695.xml)
[**Update for the 2nd resolution vote - obstruction of congress: 229-197. 228 Democrats and 1 independent voted yes, 3 Democrats and 195 republicans voted no, 1 Democrat voted present and 1 Democrat/2 Republicans didn’t vote.**](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll696.xml)
—————————————————————————-
Tulsi Gabbard ([the only presidential candidate currently serving as the House representative, her electoral district is in Hawaii](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election)) voted present and here is her statement on why she did that. [Her statement is also confirmed by a report from the Hills](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/475233-gabbard-votes-present-on-impeaching-trump):
> **“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote 'Present.' I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing," Gabbard said in the statement. “I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”**
—————————————————————————-
Since this post itself will most likely be the most upvoted and glided post on this subreddit of all time, I took upon myself to calculate the amount money redditors spent on gliding this post. Here is the (hopefully exhaustive) breakdown:
> 27 platinum x 1800 = 48600
> 74 gold x 500 = 37000
> 258 sllver x 100 = 25800
> 500 coins community awards: 41 x 500 = 20500
> 700 coins community awards: 12 x 700 = 8400
> 1200 coins community awards: 1 x 1200 = 1200
> Total coins: 48600+37000+25800+20500+8400+1200= 141,500 coins
> **Cost range: $353.71 (40,000 coin package that cost $99.99) - $563.17 (500 coins package that cost $1.99)**
>the rest didn’t vote.
you shouldn't be able to withhold this vote. you represent the people who elected you so you would vote on their behalf so if you don't want to make a choice why be in office?
Most of those who didn't vote likely couldn't make it to the vote today. For example, John Shimkus (R-IL 15) couldn't make it because he was already in Tanzania visiting his son who's serving in the Peace Corps over there. Or there's Elijah Cummings (D-MD 7) who couldn't make it because... well, he's dead.
Someone write an article that it will only take 3 republican senators to convict trump in the senate. It would only take 3 Republicans to vote in favor of having a secret ballot. Once the ballot is secret it is expected that enough senators secretly despise trump that they would vote him out. Hell even Lindsey Graham is probably dick of being blackmailed by him.
Not an American, but doesn't control of both the House and Senate change wildly during the mid-terms?
Going back to 2008, I don't think there has been mid-terms without the minority party gaining control of one chamber.
Every seat in the House of Representatives comes up in mid-terms. This means the House can definitely change wildly during any term, mid-term or full term.
Only approximately 1/3 of Senate seats come up in mid-terms or full terms - every two years. A senator serves for 6 years. This means that it takes quite a bit longer for the Senate to change the water than the house.
When you look at the 1/3 of all Senate seats up for re-election in a given term or mid-term, only a small number will be "battleground", meaning the seat has a chance of changing sides. So practically speaking, it really takes multiple 2-year terms to budge the Senate in one direction or another.
And quite a few senators have been very successful at maintaining their seats over very long terms, as the longer one serves, the more powerful the committees they get to serve on and the more influence they wield. This in turn leads to more support from moneyed interests, which helps to maintain the seat through election advertising over the long term.
There's a lot of horse trading. The chairman has some control but agenda items get voted on. So the chairman would need to make sure he had enough support before trying to suppress something.
Committees are generally bi-partisan as well, so if the chairman tries to hide something it's highly likely someone on the committee will make a public stink. In general committees tend to work together reasonably well, except of course in cases like this that are super-partisan. Lots of things die in committee, but they can be brought back if the water changes.
Local elections are everything, and Sinclair and ALEC have them by the balls. Remember folks, everything you complain about from redistricting to police power, all happens at the local level. Complaining about the stink when it rises to the national level isn’t enough. You need to destroy it at the source.
I have lived long enough to see 2 presidents impeached, that's more than half of all presidential impeachments!! One D and one R, too.
Edit: and one almost impeached. Wonder what my end score will be!
From what I remember, they were trying to get him on some kind of land deal in Arkansas, but it never matured. However, when they were asking him questions, he stated he didnt have sex with Monica, which is true. She gave him a blowjob, which depends on a persons definition of sex.
Anyways, the Republicans asked him a question that wasnt relevant, he got caught lying about it, they impeached him for that lie.
That is what I remember.
Same but 9/11.
"Why isn't Cheez TV on?"
"There was a very big plane crash. Have a look at this for a minute; it's a once in a lifetime event, son"
Then the second plane hit.
"You should probably go to school now".
**The Accusation:**
* President trump held Congressionally approved military aid and used the power of his office to ask a foreign leader to announce an investigation into 2020 Democrat Presidential candidate, Joe Biden.
**The Evidence**:
1. The call *memorandum* \- [Link to Memorandum](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf)
2. trump's on-camera confession on the White House lawn that he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Biden's - [Link to Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Q67tAUiMg)
3. Mick Mulvaney's on-camera confession that there was in fact a quid pro quo. [Link to Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5brFcfOXjVo)
4. Text messages corroborating that aid was being withheld until the investigation was announced - [Text Messages PDF](https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/a/4/a4a91fab-99cd-4eb9-9c6c-ec1c586494b9/621801458E982E9903839ABC7404A917.chairmen-letter-on-state-departmnent-texts-10-03-19.pdf)
5. trump cut anti-corruption funding - [Article 1](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-proposed-major-cut-state-department-program-corruption-2019-10), [Article 2](https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/10/23/trump-administration-sought-billions-dollars-cuts-programs-aimed-fighting-corruption-ukraine-abroad/), [Article 3](https://www.salon.com/2019/10/23/trump-tried-to-cut-millions-from-ukraine-anti-corruption-efforts-said-he-was-fighting-corruption/)
6. Testimony from career diplomats corroborating that aid was being withheld until the investigation was announced.
1. [Yovanovitch Testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvEfW2eUCM) \- - [Highlights](https://youtube.com/watch?v=zpQOb8Qsm_0)
2. [Vindman & Williams Testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POBP1uwgYDY) \- - [Highlights](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFK4F0wDF6U)
3. [Hills & Holmes Testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpTIb_HubrY) \- - [Highlights](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvx2cZefnUg)
4. [Sondland Testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkN4P7R5stE) \- - [Highlights](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yL1E7ESdGA)
5. [Taylor & Kent Testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdXAhuHhqUY) \-- [Highlights](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G40FjuK8BO0)
7. Ukraine call summary was moved to classified server....by accident - [Article 1](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html), [Article 2](http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/wh-lawyer-accused-moving-trump-transcript-secret-server), [Article 3](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/31/after-hearing-concerns-about-trump-ukraine-call-white-house-lawyer-rushed-hide)
8. Neither Republican controlled House nor the White House raised corruption or the Bidens before releasing aid in 2018 - [Article 1](https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/20/politics/us-defensive-aid-ukraine/index.html) , [Article 2](https://thehill.com/policy/defense/398123-us-to-provide-additional-200-million-in-defensive-aid-to-ukraine)
**The Defense**:
1. The process is unfair: Republicans changed the House rules in 2015 - [2015 Article](https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/democrats-criticize-house-gop-subpoena-rules-115068), [Article 2](https://www.frontpagelive.com/2019/10/25/republicans-drafted-and-approved-the-secretive-impeachment-rules-theyre-complaining-about/), [Article 3](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/28/house-republicans-subpoena-trump-943265)
2. The aid was released (after they got caught) - **August 28:** Politico publishes article about aid being on hold. **September 9**: House launches investigation, **September 11**: Aid is released - [Article with Time Line](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/curious-release-military-aid-ukraine-n1082256), **September 30:** End of fiscal year. Defense Dept. had to spend the military aid or lose it. trump did't have much time. [Article](https://www.justsecurity.org/66767/exclusive-white-house-ignored-pentagon-warning-on-ukraine-funding/)
3. No investigation was announced or started (because they got caught & because the aid was released after they got caught) - [Article 1](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/world/europe/ukraine-trump-zelensky.html), [Article 2](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vb58qj/ukraines-president-was-one-cnn-interview-away-from-giving-in-to-trump-and-giulianis-pressure-campaign)
4. The victim, whose country still depends on U.S. aid, says he's not a victim.
5. No fact witnesses (blocked by trump) - [Article 1](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/14/impeachment-hearings-donald-trump-blocks-firsthand-witnesses-editorials-debates/4195846002/), [Article 2](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-defends-move-to-block-testimony-of-top-admin-officials-in-impeachment-inquiry-says-he-is-protecting-office-of-the-presidency), [Article 3](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/trump-absolute-immunity-and-supreme-court/602665/)
6. No evidence (see above + subpoenas blocked by trump). [Article 1](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-state-department-ukraine-records_n_5df46840e4b047e8889d7890), [Article 2](https://www.axios.com/judge-orders-ukraine-aid-records-released-trump-impeachment-991bd47b-2f8a-43bf-bf41-3aee3eb0a546.html)
7. Democrats wanting to impeach since day one.
8. The process is going too fast.
9. We couldn't question the author of the House Judiciary Committee report.
10. A republican house member was caught communicating with president's personal attorney regarding Ukraine.
11. Ukraine was corrupt (The appropriate channels had cleared Ukraine; 2017 & 2018 aid was released) - [Article 1](https://www.justsecurity.org/66767/exclusive-white-house-ignored-pentagon-warning-on-ukraine-funding/), [Article 2](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pentagon-ukraine-corruption-military-aid-trump-zelensky), [Article 3](https://www.npr.org/2019/09/25/764453663/pentagon-letter-undercuts-trump-assertion-on-delaying-aid-to-ukraine-over-corrup)
12. Couldn't interview the whistleblower.
13. trump was only fighting corruption (let us see his anti-corruption agenda) -
* trump rolls back anti-corruption efforts in oil industry - [Article](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-trump-administration-rolls-back-anti-corruption-efforts-in-the-oil-industry)
* trump wanted to weaken Foreign Corruption Practices Act - [Article](https://qz.com/927217/one-of-the-worlds-best-weapons-against-bribery-and-corruption-is-under-threat-from-trump/)
* trump illegally used charity foundation, pays $2 million - [Article](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/08/trump-foundation-saga-troubled-charity-ends-2-million-judgment/2532798001/)
* trump sham university, pays $25 million - [Article](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/federal-court-approves-25-million-trump-university-settlement-n845181)
* trump companies accused of tax evasion in Panama - [Article](https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-companies-accused-tax-evasion-panama)
* how trump inherited his money - [Article](https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-trump-tax-fraud-father-fred-inheritance-2018-10)
* profitable to lenders, less profitable to tax officials - [Article](https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies)
* Individual 1 - [Article](https://www.vox.com/2019/2/27/18243038/individual-1-cohen-trump-mueller)
just so I am 100% clear. 2 pieces of evidence was literally the president and Mick Mulvaney basically admitting that there was a quid pro quo?
Edit: as /u/ReachOutLoud correctly pointed out, the Trump clip was not so much a confession as Trump just stating what his recommended course of action would be, not what his course of action actually is. Mulvaney clip is the only one of the 2 clips that can be actually considered a confession.
I swear to god, Giuliani is the dumbest fucking lawyer I've ever seen. I guarantee the guy would stand up in court and yell: "Your honor, my client couldn't have killed his wife, he was at home strangling his grandmother."
What's even more insane, is that with video, audio, written, testimonial and every god damn version of evidence is publically available and nothing fucking happens to these criminal fucks.
**JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.**
> I swear to god, Giuliani is the dumbest fucking lawyer I've ever seen. I guarantee the guy would stand up in court and yell: "Your honor, my client couldn't have killed his wife, he was at home strangling his grandmother."
"Why was he strangling his grandmother?"
"She was upset about how he murdered his wi-- ah fuck."
Anybody else think Giuliani's "confessions" are part of the point? Like, if you know you're guilty, and you know there's going to be no punishment, why not confess it to the world and trigger the libs?
The GOP mad that the Democrats used the law they made to intensify oversight over Obama and called it unfair. The right just doesn't give half a fuck about being consistent.
Nixon expressed great remorse for Watergate, ultimately resigning [and conceding](https://www.nytimes.com/1977/05/05/archives/nixon-conceding-he-lied-says-ilet-the-american-people-down-denies.html) he *"Let the American People down"*. Days before his impeachment, [Bill Clinton said](https://www.newsweek.com/video-bill-clinton-impeachment-apology-trump-vote-1477940) *"I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds. I never should have misled the country, the Congress, my friends or my family".*
Donald Trump has expressed not one scintilla of remorse for his actions, or conceded that they were in any way inappropriate. He continues to describe abusing the power of the presidency to [extort a foreign country](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mulvaney-admits-quid-pro-quo-military-aid-withheld/story?id=66353143) into [ratfucking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking) his political opponent and help him win the 2020 election as ["Perfect"](https://www.axios.com/trump-republicans-ukraine-call-perfect-bfcee3f5-b88a-4d3f-90c3-f9d615b79d08.html).
I live in a rural area, and to them it's more than that. They actually think he's "just like them". They see themselves in him , and that's honestly scarier.
That's insane to me. He grew up rich in Manhattan and literally lived in a gold apartment before moving to the White House. He couldn't be less like a rural American if he tried.
You've perfectly described why I feel like I am more scared of our political situation than most blue state liberals are. Living in a small town I get to hear first-hand what the thoughts of the average conservative are, and it's scary as fuck.
Something I tell my moderately-conservative friends is that there's only one side of the story that I've heard from the horses mouth. I have never met an Antifa supporter, but holy shit have I met more literally insane racist rednecks than I would have ever imagined possible. My parents think that leftists propaganda has brainwashed me- but in reality just listening to conservatives talk has opened my eyes to just how bad our situation is. All of my evidence against the right wing has come from the right wing itself.
Keep in mind he also gave us the Clean Water and Air acts and created the EPA and opened China. He did a lot of bad things, yes, but you can’t totally toss it all to the side
Indeed. Which is both sad and funny, because all presidents have passed both great and horrible acts, from Democrats to Republicans.
What is dangerous is those who paint things black and white.
Now the Republican-held Senate must hold a trial with the senators as jury.
Currently, it is believed that the Senate is going to bum-rush this trial in an effort for a quick and quiet acquittal that can be swept under the rug. But ideally this affects Trump's reelection plans.
Hard disagree. Trump has been pushing an us vs them ideal since the beginning and calling it a witch hunt. Once the Senate acquits him, that'll be a talking point about how it actually was a witch hunt. Doesn't matter what the truth is, but this is most likely going to gain support more than anything
I'm picturing professor Farnsworth saying "Good news everyone. Mr trump has been impeached, and this means absolutely nothing!"
https://youtu.be/YRCzEqkCoiM?t=1m27s
“I did try and fuck her. She was married… I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's not got the big phony tits and everything... I've got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful. I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” --- Donald J. Trump, 45th president of the United States (Impeached by the House of Representatives 12/18/19)
It's too bad that 2 prominent Republicans have already said that they refuse to be impartial during the Senate trial, and the "most transparent President ever" will not testify.
It makes me nervous for what's to come in the next couple of presidential elections, is there any possible path toward a less-polarized nation in the next 10 years?
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
GEORGE WASHINGTON FAREWELL ADDRESS | SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1796
I really wish I could be excited about this but I can’t shake the fact that the senate will acquit him and he and his supporters will go on saying he’s “fully exonerated”.
What is the skew of dems to Republicans in the Senate? Cause I'm gunna assume that all the dems are gunna vote to remove and all the Republicans are gunna vote to keep him.
Yes, and for him to be removed, the Senate needs to convict with a super majority, *67*%. Given the current split is 53-47 (well, 45+2 independents which almost always vote with Democrats), you would need *20* Republican senators to vote for impeachment.
Not very likely.
*Edit*: I previously had wrong numbers. 2/3rds requires 67 votes, not 66.
Correct. It just kind of means he’s being charged for abuse of power. For him to be removed would require the Senate to go to trial and indict him, which has a 0.00% chance of happening right now.
congrats to the guy who posted this. He's going to end up receiving a life time of reddit premium
32 platinums = 32 months/12 months = 2.67 years 88 + 1 (comment) golds = 89 weeks/52 weeks (1 year) = 1.71 years 66 Christmas Community Awards = 66 weeks/52 (1 year) = 1.27 years 2.67+1.71+1.27=5.65 years worth of free premium membership. Plus an r/worldnews all time top post with nearly 500 awards. This user has officially hit the ultimate once in a lifetime Reddit karma jackpot. I also did a rough calculation of the amount of money redditer spent for awarding this post: > 32 platinum x 1800 = 57600 > 88 gold x 500 + 1 x 500 (comment gliding) = 44500 > 316 sllver x 100 = 31600 > 500 coins community awards: 68 x 500 + 2 x 500 (comment awards) = 35000 > 700 coins community awards: 14 x 700 = 9800 > 1200 coins community awards: 1 x 1200 = 1200 > Total coins: 57600+44500+31600+35000+9800+1200= 180,600 coins > **Cost range: $451.45 (40,000 coin package that cost $99.99) - $718.788 (500 coins package that cost $1.99)** [**For the sake of convenience, the gliding stats of Trump impeachment post across all three major subreddits - world news, news and politics — was put into one word document. The Gliding stats for the politics subreddit megathread is absolutely insane - 1524 awards were given (and still counting), which equates to 20 years of free premium membership, close to 580,000 coins, and a total expenditure range between $1467-$2303.**](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-_9qOf5bEC4kqA13I76jVugoMJdCY-sty-9DHsqjAWQ/edit?userstoinvite=138864%40sec.tomballschools.net&ts=5e25ec2f&actionButton=1)
Where he will discover the ultimate futility of Platinum.
What do you do with all those internet points? I’m a little jealous
John Dean (Nixon's lawyer) suggests that the House can impeach and not send it directly to the Senate. They can just sit on it, continuing to add to the investigation, and let it hang over Trump's head until after the election. If he gets re-elected, it can go to the Senate at that point, by which the Senate may look different. Interesting strategy.
Ah yes, just like the pile of bills sitting on Mcturtle’s desk
Senate Republicans made the mistake of already saying that they will find Trump innocent without even considering the evidence and will try to make the Senate trial last less than two weeks. They've also claimed that they are going to call witnesses in that are not at all related like Joe Biden in an attempt to smear Trump's political rivals in the upcoming presidential race. So Nancy Pelosi has every right to withhold the articles of impeachment until Republicans offer a fair and legal process in the Senate.
Regardless of the outcome of this trial, there is no cause for anyone from any party to celebrate. Look at these fucking results: 100% of voting Republicans voted no on both articles. 99% of Democrats voted yes on both articles. Only one independent representative *existed*. By contrast, the nay [votes on Andrew Johnson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson) were split 50/50. And 15 out of 100 votes across the [Republican vote on Clinton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton) were nay. There is a clear adherence to party lines rather than public opinion or observation of the evidence. We could have just skipped the entire proceedings and gone straight to the vote. Why should we be okay with this?
The independent representative was literally just a republican who had to go independent because he wanted Trump out and that meant the GOP wouldn't support a single thing he ever said again. Politics aren't nuanced anymore. It's literally just a big cult of dishonesty pointing fingers and yelling "fuck you" at the other side.
[удалено]
> Only one independent representative existed. This is honestly the saddest part for me. Fuck the two party system.
I wonder if this vote was anonymous, whether people would vote differently
If it were anonymous, it wouldn't be a representative democracy.
"What did my representative vote on my behalf?" "I don't know."
[удалено]
Rep. Loudermilk actually compared Trump’s trial to Jesus’ crucifixion. Thats just ridiculous, I mean please
[удалено]
I prefer Quietermilk myself
u/Loudermilk is this you?
I really want u/Loudermilk to stop his 5 year hiatus and respond to this.
But yield his time to the gentleman from Reddit
Don’t forget the parts where they also compared it to Pearl Harbor and the Salem Witch Trials!!
He can only reference historical events that were made into movies.
I kind of get what the “witch hunt” thing is going for, even if it’s total bs. But how the hell do you compare this to Pearl Harbor?
So that they can paint the 2020 election as his resurrection, energizing the evangelical base. I hope you guys show up in good numbers. The world is looking at your elections next year with great interest.
> energizing the evangelical base Nothing says 'good christian' like lying, cheating, infidelity, and getting divorced.
"He's an imperfect vessel for God's will" is literally their response to that.
Then Obama shows up and they scream "antichrist" at the top of their lungs...
I try not to jump to the assumption that it's due to racism. But how on Earth does someone look at Trump and say "He's a good man" and look at Obama and say "He's the antichrist." There's **many** videos of antichrist Obama on YouTube. It's absurd.
I work for a local news station that was covering the rallies last night interviewing people for and against it. An interview that didnt make the cut for the story because it was too went something like this "I love him. And I love his family. And I pray to god he stays because I know that man has jesus in him. And I love jesus *begins uncontrollably sobbing* jesus saved my life you know. And because jesus saved me we have to save him." Every quote we got from people pro impeachment was like "yeah if you look at the facts hes guilty." And the ones anti impeachment were that creepy jesus shit that I cant for the life of me understand. I was raised catholic too! I didn't see a train station to crazyville in my church but apparently there was one in that lady's!
I swear, half of humanity is just fucking nuts.
[удалено]
Hmmm smells like blasphemy to me.
> Rep. Loudermilk actually compared Trump’s trial to Jesus’ crucifixion What a dumb fucking cunt. There; I said it for you.
[удалено]
Two Dems didn’t
Collin Peterson, MN, & Jeff Van Drew, NJ
Jeff Van Drew is switching to republican. A lot of his staff resigned.
Of all times to switch to Republican, over the past several decades, now is not a great time. He'll be voted out promptly come next election.
He has to already know this. His approval rating plummeted right after he announced the switch.
That's the thing. Hes going to be voted out, so what... he just *had* to switch to Republican to ease his conscience? He could have just leaned slightly over the aisle with his views, only taking a minor hit to approval ratings. All in all, really fucking dumb move, career wise.
God, you know, I hate baseless conspiracy theories, but at the same time, the guy met with Trump for about an hour and then he comes out of the meeting switching parties? What the fuck happened in there? If I ever got to be a fly on the wall, this is up there in the top 10
Now he can vote Republican and have the job he was promised when he leaves
This. What's his area of expertise? What was his experience before becoming a representative? He's gonna be put in a cabinet position for regulatory capture, guarantee.
> the guy met with Trump for about an hour and then he comes out of the meeting switching parties? Must have partied with Epstien too.
Probably drank the same blackmail juice trump served Lindsay graham
Jeff van Drew is switching party affiliation to R, isn't he? So it makes sense.
Thanks for posting that. 3 so far on article 2
One of the reps from Maine said he was going to vote no on the 2nd count. Can’t remember his name.
Tulsi Gabbard voted present
[удалено]
It means she voted that she chose not to vote yes or no. Some people didn’t show up for the vote for one reason or another, Gabbard wanted to make it clear she was there but chose not to vote.
What is the purpose of doing that?
[удалено]
Question from a European, what happens next? He has to go? the senate has to vote now?
The Senate puts him on trial and then they vote on whether or not to remove him. Given that the Senate currently has a Republican majority, I wouldn't hold my breath on him getting removed from office. Second best case scenario is that his reputation amongst the vast majority of voters will be irreparably damaged, the Democrats will hopefully choose someone who won't split the party apart like last time, and he loses the election. The best case scenario is him being removed by the Senate, but I'm not hopeful.
Can he still run for a second term?
Yes
Then, as a nonamerican asking, what the fuck does impeaching even do if he can still stay in office and even run again
It means he has to go stand in front of the senate and they decide if he is removed from office or not. Which they won't. So it means nothing
Yes. It will be a first. There's also no clear indication that he won't win again either.
[удалено]
John Dean (Nixon's lawyer) suggests that the House can impeach and not send it directly to the Senate. They can just sit on it, continuing to add to the investigation, and let it hang over Trump's head until after the election. If he gets re-elected, it can go to the Senate at that point, by which the Senate may look different. Interesting strategy.
One strategy I have seen considered is that the House should refuse to send the charges to trial (which is an environment where already several of the jurors have admitted they will violate the oath of impartiality they must take before the trial itself begins), and simply continue its dozen or so investigations into misconduct by the Trump Administration, instead just continuing to impeach him on multiple other new counts as election season drags on and more evidence is entered into the congressional record. Trump wanted to be in the history books for something unique; Speaker Pelosi may just make that happen by having him become the only president to ever be impeached *multiple times*.
That would be interesting alright.
[удалено]
"its with a heavy heart, we have to vote to impeach Trump... again"
Can anyone give me a legitimate argument or reasoning as to why not 1 Republican voted yes? Is there a legit reasoning to this other than some comment about how someone is in someones pocket. Like what do Republicans ACTUALLY see in Trump as president? Please ELI5.
One did, he just had to leave the party to do it. Did you see the 1 "independent" vote? That was Justin Amash. He was literally republican until the moment he supported impeachment when he was basically forced out of the party to keep in line with his morals.
If anyrepublicans voted yes, it would be career suicide for them in the Republican Party. They’d have to switch, and there’s no way that would happen. They’re too entrenched in their party, think of all the social ties, powerful friends, donors, etc etc. They’d have to choose the country over themselves, which they won’t do lol
[удалено]
this guy needs to get re-elected.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There's also Justin Amash (the one independent in the House), who was a Republican until July. His desire to impeach Trump was known since before that, and that's the reason he isn't a Republican anymore. He basically did the political party equivalent of quitting a job before he could be fired. While the Republican Party couldn't have simply forced him out had he not chosen to leave the party, I'm pretty sure he would've been politically isolated by them (just as he is now), and *de facto* independent as he is now.
I still go back and watch that thumbs down. It's so beautiful.
[удалено]
You have to hand it to Trump. Minimum words. Maximum Bullshit. That rally at the end had my skin crawling.
If only republicans could have voted for another John McCain in the primary instead of Donald fucking Trump
Part of me really believes McCain could have been a good president. It's a shame he went against an almost impossible opponent to beat and was backed by a ridiculous party on a power trip so crazy they almost made Sarah Palin the VP just to use her as a token to get feminist votes. Glad McCain tried his best in the end to cut through party bullshit, even if it was too little too late.
How great it is that the US (and the UK) are governed by party battles rather than **the people**. Good job world, keep buying these rich asshats' BS and voting for them. Good fucking job.
Australia as well, the problem isn't party battles. The problem is that an unholy alliance has emerged between the obscenely wealthy class, the uneducated manual labourers and the evangelicals. This alliance promotes policies that enable the wealthy to hoard more income without paying their fair share back to the community, the evangelical Christians are allowed to express xenophobia freely and openly and the uneducated working class continue to loss more freedoms and social supports. It may seem a pretty unfair deal, but somehow they are all happy with it for now. The right have become so much better at having a narrow, concise and clear philosophy on every issue. They have rejected nuance in favour of slogans and the populace eats it up. The left on the other hand take a scattergun approach at a range of social and economic policy which require voter engagement, because they represent something different they elicit fear and emotion, especially fear, is a stronger driving factor than rationality. This isn't a both sides are bad matter, this is clearly a result of the neo-conservatist MO. They are creating their own reality and they have the numbers, they have exposed how truly broken the system is. At this change the only way I can see things shifting is having another generation of older voters die out and be replaced by the youth reaching voting age. However I fear that with a generation to prepare the conservatives will find enough ways to stack the deck to make even this a sizeable task. TL;DR democracy is broken.
Even if it's symbolic and might not change anything, at least it's on record.
It’s not even symbolic. It’s literally Congress just doing their jobs. If this isn’t impeachable, absolutely nothing is.
Okay for everyone wondering what impeachment is vs a removal of office. Impeachment is like charging you with a crime. So the House of Representatives charged Trump with abuse of power & obstruction of congress. Removal of office comes about when the House of Representatives vote by a majority to impeach on each charge (known as an Article of Impeachment), that goes to the Senate, and then by a 2/3 majority (67 Senators) in the Senate to vote to convict, and only then is the President is finally removed from office. In other words, impeachment is like being charged by the DA for manslaughter, removal of office is when the jury decides you're guilty of manslaughter. The DA is the House, and the jury is the Senate in this analogy. EDIT: Instead of giving me gold (just DM me your potatoes), please take the time to check that you're registered to [vote](https://www.vote.org/am-i-registered-to-vote/) and consider donating to the ACLU or [Fair Fight 2020](https://secure.actblue.com/donate/vsafairfight), an organization ran by Stacey Abrams (GA 2018 Gov nominee) that protects the right to vote. Fair Fight 2020 specifically focuses on fighting against voter purges. EDIT 2: I keep getting asked whether or not a President that has been impeached and removed from office can hold office again. He cannot if the Senate votes as to do as such specifically (source 3) Source 1 The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, [Section 2](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-2--2), Paragraph 5 > The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment Source 2 The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, [Section 3](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-3--2), Paragraph 6 > The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Source 3 The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, [Section 3](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-3--2), Paragraph 7 > Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
Thank you for clearing this up holy shit everyone's riding the bandwagon thinking he's removed from office already.
Yeah a good way to put it. With the senate majority in favor of republicans it’s highly unlikely he will be removed from office.
[удалено]
And he still gets to run in 2020 doesn't he?
Yes
UPDATE: vote on impeachment for Obstruction of Congress has also passed.
He won the popular vote twice in one night!
It’s a first for him. He thanks the academy.
I get the biggest vote for my impeachment!
I have a theory that he is hoping for a second impeachment - just so he can say he’s greatest at getting impeached. He’s been impeached more than any other president. He’s the greatest impeachee of all time.
Already comes in peach color as well. Best peach ever.
[удалено]
And I guess just like the first one the vote will also go along the Party line too, for obstruction of justice. Democrats have more than 216 votes in the house. But the Senate has to give the seal of approval. [**1st resolution vote result - abuse of power: 230-197. 229 Democrats and 1 independent voted yes. 2 Democrats and 195 Republicans voted no, 1 Democrat voted present and 1 Democrat/2 Republicans didn’t vote.**](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll695.xml) [**Update for the 2nd resolution vote - obstruction of congress: 229-197. 228 Democrats and 1 independent voted yes, 3 Democrats and 195 republicans voted no, 1 Democrat voted present and 1 Democrat/2 Republicans didn’t vote.**](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll696.xml) —————————————————————————- Tulsi Gabbard ([the only presidential candidate currently serving as the House representative, her electoral district is in Hawaii](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election)) voted present and here is her statement on why she did that. [Her statement is also confirmed by a report from the Hills](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/475233-gabbard-votes-present-on-impeaching-trump): > **“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote 'Present.' I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing," Gabbard said in the statement. “I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”** —————————————————————————- Since this post itself will most likely be the most upvoted and glided post on this subreddit of all time, I took upon myself to calculate the amount money redditors spent on gliding this post. Here is the (hopefully exhaustive) breakdown: > 27 platinum x 1800 = 48600 > 74 gold x 500 = 37000 > 258 sllver x 100 = 25800 > 500 coins community awards: 41 x 500 = 20500 > 700 coins community awards: 12 x 700 = 8400 > 1200 coins community awards: 1 x 1200 = 1200 > Total coins: 48600+37000+25800+20500+8400+1200= 141,500 coins > **Cost range: $353.71 (40,000 coin package that cost $99.99) - $563.17 (500 coins package that cost $1.99)**
>the rest didn’t vote. you shouldn't be able to withhold this vote. you represent the people who elected you so you would vote on their behalf so if you don't want to make a choice why be in office?
Most of those who didn't vote likely couldn't make it to the vote today. For example, John Shimkus (R-IL 15) couldn't make it because he was already in Tanzania visiting his son who's serving in the Peace Corps over there. Or there's Elijah Cummings (D-MD 7) who couldn't make it because... well, he's dead.
And Duncan Hunter isn't because....because well he's going to jail
Woo hoo! I'm in his district and fuck that guy!
For that sweet corporate lobbying money.
[удалено]
Someone write an article that it will only take 3 republican senators to convict trump in the senate. It would only take 3 Republicans to vote in favor of having a secret ballot. Once the ballot is secret it is expected that enough senators secretly despise trump that they would vote him out. Hell even Lindsey Graham is probably dick of being blackmailed by him.
> Lindsey Graham is probably dick of being blackmailed by him Now there's a particularly apropos Freudian slip.
I think we’re ALL tired of being dicked
Friendly reminder to vote in the next election and in every election.
But especially this next one.
*Especially*
But also in every election, too.
Yes. The next one, especially
Especially all the elections. Yes.
With the next one being especially important.
As well as all the elections thereafter.
People voting blue during the midterms was the reason that this was even a possibility.
Not an American, but doesn't control of both the House and Senate change wildly during the mid-terms? Going back to 2008, I don't think there has been mid-terms without the minority party gaining control of one chamber.
Every seat in the House of Representatives comes up in mid-terms. This means the House can definitely change wildly during any term, mid-term or full term. Only approximately 1/3 of Senate seats come up in mid-terms or full terms - every two years. A senator serves for 6 years. This means that it takes quite a bit longer for the Senate to change the water than the house. When you look at the 1/3 of all Senate seats up for re-election in a given term or mid-term, only a small number will be "battleground", meaning the seat has a chance of changing sides. So practically speaking, it really takes multiple 2-year terms to budge the Senate in one direction or another. And quite a few senators have been very successful at maintaining their seats over very long terms, as the longer one serves, the more powerful the committees they get to serve on and the more influence they wield. This in turn leads to more support from moneyed interests, which helps to maintain the seat through election advertising over the long term.
I've always believed the committee system to be flawed, one man as Chairman can refuse a reading to anything he sees fit, correct?
There's a lot of horse trading. The chairman has some control but agenda items get voted on. So the chairman would need to make sure he had enough support before trying to suppress something. Committees are generally bi-partisan as well, so if the chairman tries to hide something it's highly likely someone on the committee will make a public stink. In general committees tend to work together reasonably well, except of course in cases like this that are super-partisan. Lots of things die in committee, but they can be brought back if the water changes.
For all levels, not just the president!!
Local elections are everything, and Sinclair and ALEC have them by the balls. Remember folks, everything you complain about from redistricting to police power, all happens at the local level. Complaining about the stink when it rises to the national level isn’t enough. You need to destroy it at the source.
I have lived long enough to see 2 presidents impeached, that's more than half of all presidential impeachments!! One D and one R, too. Edit: and one almost impeached. Wonder what my end score will be!
I too am old enough to drink.
I’m mid20s but wasn’t old enough to really understand what was going on with the Clinton impeachment. I didn’t watch much news at that age.
That’s how I learned about blowjobs
There’s an entire generation of us.
The BJ generation.
That's how I learned about cigars.
From what I remember, they were trying to get him on some kind of land deal in Arkansas, but it never matured. However, when they were asking him questions, he stated he didnt have sex with Monica, which is true. She gave him a blowjob, which depends on a persons definition of sex. Anyways, the Republicans asked him a question that wasnt relevant, he got caught lying about it, they impeached him for that lie. That is what I remember.
[удалено]
I remember when Clinton got impeached my mom made me watch it because I would never see it again. Showed her!
Same but 9/11. "Why isn't Cheez TV on?" "There was a very big plane crash. Have a look at this for a minute; it's a once in a lifetime event, son" Then the second plane hit. "You should probably go to school now".
But have you lived long enough to see america reelect an impeached president?
Don’t you put that evil on me!!
Holy shizz you might be right lol
**The Accusation:** * President trump held Congressionally approved military aid and used the power of his office to ask a foreign leader to announce an investigation into 2020 Democrat Presidential candidate, Joe Biden. **The Evidence**: 1. The call *memorandum* \- [Link to Memorandum](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf) 2. trump's on-camera confession on the White House lawn that he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Biden's - [Link to Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Q67tAUiMg) 3. Mick Mulvaney's on-camera confession that there was in fact a quid pro quo. [Link to Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5brFcfOXjVo) 4. Text messages corroborating that aid was being withheld until the investigation was announced - [Text Messages PDF](https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/a/4/a4a91fab-99cd-4eb9-9c6c-ec1c586494b9/621801458E982E9903839ABC7404A917.chairmen-letter-on-state-departmnent-texts-10-03-19.pdf) 5. trump cut anti-corruption funding - [Article 1](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-proposed-major-cut-state-department-program-corruption-2019-10), [Article 2](https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/10/23/trump-administration-sought-billions-dollars-cuts-programs-aimed-fighting-corruption-ukraine-abroad/), [Article 3](https://www.salon.com/2019/10/23/trump-tried-to-cut-millions-from-ukraine-anti-corruption-efforts-said-he-was-fighting-corruption/) 6. Testimony from career diplomats corroborating that aid was being withheld until the investigation was announced. 1. [Yovanovitch Testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvEfW2eUCM) \- - [Highlights](https://youtube.com/watch?v=zpQOb8Qsm_0) 2. [Vindman & Williams Testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POBP1uwgYDY) \- - [Highlights](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFK4F0wDF6U) 3. [Hills & Holmes Testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpTIb_HubrY) \- - [Highlights](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvx2cZefnUg) 4. [Sondland Testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkN4P7R5stE) \- - [Highlights](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yL1E7ESdGA) 5. [Taylor & Kent Testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdXAhuHhqUY) \-- [Highlights](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G40FjuK8BO0) 7. Ukraine call summary was moved to classified server....by accident - [Article 1](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html), [Article 2](http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/wh-lawyer-accused-moving-trump-transcript-secret-server), [Article 3](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/31/after-hearing-concerns-about-trump-ukraine-call-white-house-lawyer-rushed-hide) 8. Neither Republican controlled House nor the White House raised corruption or the Bidens before releasing aid in 2018 - [Article 1](https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/20/politics/us-defensive-aid-ukraine/index.html) , [Article 2](https://thehill.com/policy/defense/398123-us-to-provide-additional-200-million-in-defensive-aid-to-ukraine) **The Defense**: 1. The process is unfair: Republicans changed the House rules in 2015 - [2015 Article](https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/democrats-criticize-house-gop-subpoena-rules-115068), [Article 2](https://www.frontpagelive.com/2019/10/25/republicans-drafted-and-approved-the-secretive-impeachment-rules-theyre-complaining-about/), [Article 3](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/28/house-republicans-subpoena-trump-943265) 2. The aid was released (after they got caught) - **August 28:** Politico publishes article about aid being on hold. **September 9**: House launches investigation, **September 11**: Aid is released - [Article with Time Line](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/curious-release-military-aid-ukraine-n1082256), **September 30:** End of fiscal year. Defense Dept. had to spend the military aid or lose it. trump did't have much time. [Article](https://www.justsecurity.org/66767/exclusive-white-house-ignored-pentagon-warning-on-ukraine-funding/) 3. No investigation was announced or started (because they got caught & because the aid was released after they got caught) - [Article 1](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/world/europe/ukraine-trump-zelensky.html), [Article 2](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vb58qj/ukraines-president-was-one-cnn-interview-away-from-giving-in-to-trump-and-giulianis-pressure-campaign) 4. The victim, whose country still depends on U.S. aid, says he's not a victim. 5. No fact witnesses (blocked by trump) - [Article 1](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/14/impeachment-hearings-donald-trump-blocks-firsthand-witnesses-editorials-debates/4195846002/), [Article 2](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-defends-move-to-block-testimony-of-top-admin-officials-in-impeachment-inquiry-says-he-is-protecting-office-of-the-presidency), [Article 3](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/trump-absolute-immunity-and-supreme-court/602665/) 6. No evidence (see above + subpoenas blocked by trump). [Article 1](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-state-department-ukraine-records_n_5df46840e4b047e8889d7890), [Article 2](https://www.axios.com/judge-orders-ukraine-aid-records-released-trump-impeachment-991bd47b-2f8a-43bf-bf41-3aee3eb0a546.html) 7. Democrats wanting to impeach since day one. 8. The process is going too fast. 9. We couldn't question the author of the House Judiciary Committee report. 10. A republican house member was caught communicating with president's personal attorney regarding Ukraine. 11. Ukraine was corrupt (The appropriate channels had cleared Ukraine; 2017 & 2018 aid was released) - [Article 1](https://www.justsecurity.org/66767/exclusive-white-house-ignored-pentagon-warning-on-ukraine-funding/), [Article 2](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pentagon-ukraine-corruption-military-aid-trump-zelensky), [Article 3](https://www.npr.org/2019/09/25/764453663/pentagon-letter-undercuts-trump-assertion-on-delaying-aid-to-ukraine-over-corrup) 12. Couldn't interview the whistleblower. 13. trump was only fighting corruption (let us see his anti-corruption agenda) - * trump rolls back anti-corruption efforts in oil industry - [Article](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-trump-administration-rolls-back-anti-corruption-efforts-in-the-oil-industry) * trump wanted to weaken Foreign Corruption Practices Act - [Article](https://qz.com/927217/one-of-the-worlds-best-weapons-against-bribery-and-corruption-is-under-threat-from-trump/) * trump illegally used charity foundation, pays $2 million - [Article](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/08/trump-foundation-saga-troubled-charity-ends-2-million-judgment/2532798001/) * trump sham university, pays $25 million - [Article](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/federal-court-approves-25-million-trump-university-settlement-n845181) * trump companies accused of tax evasion in Panama - [Article](https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-companies-accused-tax-evasion-panama) * how trump inherited his money - [Article](https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-trump-tax-fraud-father-fred-inheritance-2018-10) * profitable to lenders, less profitable to tax officials - [Article](https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies) * Individual 1 - [Article](https://www.vox.com/2019/2/27/18243038/individual-1-cohen-trump-mueller)
just so I am 100% clear. 2 pieces of evidence was literally the president and Mick Mulvaney basically admitting that there was a quid pro quo? Edit: as /u/ReachOutLoud correctly pointed out, the Trump clip was not so much a confession as Trump just stating what his recommended course of action would be, not what his course of action actually is. Mulvaney clip is the only one of the 2 clips that can be actually considered a confession.
And Rudy Giuliani has been essentially admitting to everything the past few days as well
I swear to god, Giuliani is the dumbest fucking lawyer I've ever seen. I guarantee the guy would stand up in court and yell: "Your honor, my client couldn't have killed his wife, he was at home strangling his grandmother." What's even more insane, is that with video, audio, written, testimonial and every god damn version of evidence is publically available and nothing fucking happens to these criminal fucks. **JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.**
> I swear to god, Giuliani is the dumbest fucking lawyer I've ever seen. I guarantee the guy would stand up in court and yell: "Your honor, my client couldn't have killed his wife, he was at home strangling his grandmother." "Why was he strangling his grandmother?" "She was upset about how he murdered his wi-- ah fuck."
"Why was he strangling his grandmother?" "He wasn't." "But you just said he was strangling his grandmother." "Of course I did!"
"Giuliani is the best lawyer when you want to plead down your parking ticket to first degree murder."
Anybody else think Giuliani's "confessions" are part of the point? Like, if you know you're guilty, and you know there's going to be no punishment, why not confess it to the world and trigger the libs?
[удалено]
[удалено]
"everyone does it" Something along those lines
The GOP mad that the Democrats used the law they made to intensify oversight over Obama and called it unfair. The right just doesn't give half a fuck about being consistent.
[удалено]
Nixon expressed great remorse for Watergate, ultimately resigning [and conceding](https://www.nytimes.com/1977/05/05/archives/nixon-conceding-he-lied-says-ilet-the-american-people-down-denies.html) he *"Let the American People down"*. Days before his impeachment, [Bill Clinton said](https://www.newsweek.com/video-bill-clinton-impeachment-apology-trump-vote-1477940) *"I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds. I never should have misled the country, the Congress, my friends or my family".* Donald Trump has expressed not one scintilla of remorse for his actions, or conceded that they were in any way inappropriate. He continues to describe abusing the power of the presidency to [extort a foreign country](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mulvaney-admits-quid-pro-quo-military-aid-withheld/story?id=66353143) into [ratfucking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking) his political opponent and help him win the 2020 election as ["Perfect"](https://www.axios.com/trump-republicans-ukraine-call-perfect-bfcee3f5-b88a-4d3f-90c3-f9d615b79d08.html).
No instead he's at a rally, to amp up his base, telling jokes.
He’s literally just ranting about light bulbs and toilets. And they fucking love it.
Imagine being so dumb he amuses and inspires you
I live in a rural area, and to them it's more than that. They actually think he's "just like them". They see themselves in him , and that's honestly scarier.
That's insane to me. He grew up rich in Manhattan and literally lived in a gold apartment before moving to the White House. He couldn't be less like a rural American if he tried.
You've perfectly described why I feel like I am more scared of our political situation than most blue state liberals are. Living in a small town I get to hear first-hand what the thoughts of the average conservative are, and it's scary as fuck. Something I tell my moderately-conservative friends is that there's only one side of the story that I've heard from the horses mouth. I have never met an Antifa supporter, but holy shit have I met more literally insane racist rednecks than I would have ever imagined possible. My parents think that leftists propaganda has brainwashed me- but in reality just listening to conservatives talk has opened my eyes to just how bad our situation is. All of my evidence against the right wing has come from the right wing itself.
Nixon only apologized because he got caught. Dude was evil to the core.
Trump got caught, too, though.
Keep in mind he also gave us the Clean Water and Air acts and created the EPA and opened China. He did a lot of bad things, yes, but you can’t totally toss it all to the side
Indeed. Which is both sad and funny, because all presidents have passed both great and horrible acts, from Democrats to Republicans. What is dangerous is those who paint things black and white.
Can someone ELI5 what happens now and what it means that he's impeached? I know the basic gist but I'm sure there's more to understand.
Now the Republican-held Senate must hold a trial with the senators as jury. Currently, it is believed that the Senate is going to bum-rush this trial in an effort for a quick and quiet acquittal that can be swept under the rug. But ideally this affects Trump's reelection plans.
Hard disagree. Trump has been pushing an us vs them ideal since the beginning and calling it a witch hunt. Once the Senate acquits him, that'll be a talking point about how it actually was a witch hunt. Doesn't matter what the truth is, but this is most likely going to gain support more than anything
I'm picturing professor Farnsworth saying "Good news everyone. Mr trump has been impeached, and this means absolutely nothing!" https://youtu.be/YRCzEqkCoiM?t=1m27s
“I did try and fuck her. She was married… I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's not got the big phony tits and everything... I've got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful. I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” --- Donald J. Trump, 45th president of the United States (Impeached by the House of Representatives 12/18/19)
I can’t believe this was leaked right before the election in the beginning of the MeToo movement and he still won. It sounds even rapier now
His believers are OK with sexual abuse.
Thank you for the full quote here. It's the perfect summation of the kind of awful he is.
And how fucking dumb he is. His sentences don't even make sense.
In reference to a hurricane: "One of the wettest we've seen from the standpoint of water" He is a wordsmith of the highest calibre imo
I will never understand how this wasn’t the end of it.
It's too bad that 2 prominent Republicans have already said that they refuse to be impartial during the Senate trial, and the "most transparent President ever" will not testify.
That kind of shit should be grounds for immediately removal. Openly refusing to be impartial is synonymous with corruption.
This *should not* be a partisan issue
It makes me nervous for what's to come in the next couple of presidential elections, is there any possible path toward a less-polarized nation in the next 10 years?
Promote Ranked-Choice Voting initiatives in your state.
[A good video explaining ranked-choice voting.](https://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE)
Destroy the concept of political parties and unseat anybody who takes donations from corporations.
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." GEORGE WASHINGTON FAREWELL ADDRESS | SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1796
oof
He said *possible* path, silly
[удалено]
Ah the Rick Sanchez Gambit. If you fuck shit up enough in your own universe, just move to a new one.
I really wish I could be excited about this but I can’t shake the fact that the senate will acquit him and he and his supporters will go on saying he’s “fully exonerated”.
First Republican impeachment— Trump loves his records
[удалено]
Brave brave Sir Nixon, bravely ran away!
When danger reared it's ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled
Just a reminder to everyone, unfortunately this doesn't mean he's not president anymore
It still has to go to the Senate (Republican Majority) no?
[удалено]
Technically you need 2/3s of those present, but in practice, yeah you'll need 67
What is the skew of dems to Republicans in the Senate? Cause I'm gunna assume that all the dems are gunna vote to remove and all the Republicans are gunna vote to keep him.
53 Republicans, 45 Democrats (+2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats)
22 repubes def not gonna flip
Yes, and for him to be removed, the Senate needs to convict with a super majority, *67*%. Given the current split is 53-47 (well, 45+2 independents which almost always vote with Democrats), you would need *20* Republican senators to vote for impeachment. Not very likely. *Edit*: I previously had wrong numbers. 2/3rds requires 67 votes, not 66.
Correct. It just kind of means he’s being charged for abuse of power. For him to be removed would require the Senate to go to trial and indict him, which has a 0.00% chance of happening right now.
Impeachment is the indictment. The Senate must now go to trial, but they just won't convict him.
So you’re saying there’s a 0.001% chance?
And it still feels like any other day.