Impeachment Porn

Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't give a rip what you right-wingers think, they entrapped him into lying about cheating on his wife. Give me a *********** break....

Tell me, can we find any posts of you being equally adamant that half of Trump's inner circle also lied under oath either on security forms or in their confirmation hearings?

I'll wait.
Click to expand...

No need to wait.

As I reminder, I neither supported nor voted for Trump, and have been vocal in my criticism. I’ve written my Republican representatives in the House and Senate and recommended censure at the very least for his patterns of behavior. I’ve also suggested his extreme level of lying, intentionally misleading and wanton disregard for the truth could rise to the level a high crime and misdemeanor.

I feel a sense of schadenfreude when one of his minions is caught in a lie or criminal behavior. I hope Flynn, Papadopoulos, Manafort and Gates get their just desserts. Though Trump promised “100%” to testify under oath if requested, we all know he “just says stuff”. I still would love to see him testify under oath and watch him squirm trying to reconcile all the lies and contradictory statements he’s made.

I simply disagree with minimizing lying under oath to a judge. It may be understandable to want to avoid embarrassment, but our judicial system is based on honest testimony under oath, so much so that the mere act of lying to a judge, or congress, or the FBI is a crime in and of itself.

I do not hold a Paula Jones to be some sort of feminist icon or role model. But especially in light of today’s “me too” movement, I’m surprised to see that a man lying to a judge to deny her her just compensation for an alleged wrong can be so easily minimized and/or justified just because the liar is “your guy”.

As an aside, avoiding a “perjury trap” is not hard to do - just tell the truth!
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
"porn" suggests a form of tension release, albeit artificial and temporary.
The media on the other hand is interested in keeping the audience hooked all the time.
So the term really does not fit in this case.
Click to expand...

The porn industry is also interested in keeping the audience hooked all the time. This is easy enough to do, since people will seek out that high of titillation. The release is artificial and temporary, and thus ultimately unsatisfying. People keep coming back for more product, more fantasies to stoke their fires and get them off.

Impeachment porn is an elaborate form of political edging, for people who no longer get off on the vanilla practice of simply marking a ballot every few years.
 
theprestige said:
The porn industry is also interested in keeping the audience hooked all the time. This is easy enough to do, since people will seek out that high of titillation. The release is artificial and temporary, and thus ultimately unsatisfying. People keep coming back for more product, more fantasies to stoke their fires and get them off.

Impeachment porn is an elaborate form of political edging, for people who no longer get off on the vanilla practice of simply marking a ballot every few years.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like Fox News.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Sounds a lot like Fox News.
Click to expand...

Fox News definitely uses this strategy to keep their viewers. Right now, they are floating major conspiracies about the FBI and "deep state" shadow government that is run by Hillary and Obama to take Trump down. This thread about "impeachment porn" is just more Trumpublican attempt to discredit Mueller's investigation and downplay Russia's involvement in the elections.
 
Although the Constitution gives impeachment the trappings of a judicial proceding, it is, fundamentally a political one. Grounds for impeachment are "treason, bribery or other high crime or misdemeanor". But what is an "other high crime or misdemeanor"? Whatever you can get a majority of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate to agree is one. Andrew Johnson fell one vote short of removal for violating a clearly unconstitutional law by firing a cabinet secretary. Clinton's alledged treason about Monica wasn't enough to convince a single Senate Democrat to vote for removal.

I don't really see Trump getting tossed for talking to Russians, certainly not unless the midterms result in a lot more Democrats in the Senate than anybody expects at this point.
 
CORed said:
Although the Constitution gives impeachment the trappings of a judicial proceding, it is, fundamentally a political one. Grounds for impeachment are "treason, bribery or other high crime or misdemeanor". But what is an "other high crime or misdemeanor"? Whatever you can get a majority of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate to agree is one. Andrew Johnson fell one vote short of removal for violating a clearly unconstitutional law by firing a cabinet secretary. Clinton's alledged treason about Monica wasn't enough to convince a single Senate Democrat to vote for removal.

I don't really see Trump getting tossed for talking to Russians, certainly not unless the midterms result in a lot more Democrats in the Senate than anybody expects at this point.
Click to expand...
Even if they take the house and senate, they might prefer Trump to Pence for both political and practical reasons.
 
CORed said:
Although the Constitution gives impeachment the trappings of a judicial proceding, it is, fundamentally a political one. Grounds for impeachment are "treason, bribery or other high crime or misdemeanor". But what is an "other high crime or misdemeanor"? Whatever you can get a majority of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate to agree is one. Andrew Johnson fell one vote short of removal for violating a clearly unconstitutional law by firing a cabinet secretary. Clinton's alledged treason about Monica wasn't enough to convince a single Senate Democrat to vote for removal.

I don't really see Trump getting tossed for talking to Russians, certainly not unless the midterms result in a lot more Democrats in the Senate than anybody expects at this point.
Click to expand...

I'd say that attempting to lift sanctions in exchange for help in the election would easily qualify as a high crime, and so is obstruction of justice to protect others, even if Trump were (snicker) innocent. But yeah, I can't see Trump getting tossed unless something inexcusably criminal comes out of Mueller's investigation -- something bad enough that the Republicans will abandon SS Trump to salvage the party. But I'd say the odds on that are looking good.
 
"Perhaps the most noteworthy media development of the Trump era is the rise of “impeachment porn”: regular breathless stories that purport to share the latest dirt from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation
Click to expand...
The political situation we found ourselves in is unique, with a particularly unpopular president who is either directly or indirectly suspected in engaging in significant crimes (including treason).

Such events are significant points in history. Its like seeing Nixon leave after watergate, or
but are based on nothing more than innuendo and speculation."
Click to expand...
And statements from Trump Jr. about how they get all the money they need from Russia.

And reports from the FBI about how the hacking was most likely initiated from Russia.

And meetings that Trump's team had with people linked to Russia that they lied about.

But hey, yeah you're right. If you ignore the actual evidence you are left with nothing but innuendo and speculation.
 
"directly or indirectly suspected"

A year in, folks. A year in, and this is the best they have.

Indirectly suspected. Might as well just admit to being addicted to truthiness.
 
CORed said:
I don't really see Trump getting tossed for talking to Russians, certainly not unless the midterms result in a lot more Democrats in the Senate than anybody expects at this point.
Click to expand...

I think Trump being impeached by a Republican Congress is nearly impossible. I think it would take Trump himself (not just someone close to him) on audio or video explicitly agreeing to commit a serious, unambiguous crime with the Russians in exchange for some kind of compensation.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
No need to wait.

As I reminder, I neither supported nor voted for Trump, and have been vocal in my criticism. I’ve written my Republican representatives in the House and Senate and recommended censure at the very least for his patterns of behavior. I’ve also suggested his extreme level of lying, intentionally misleading and wanton disregard for the truth could rise to the level a high crime and misdemeanor.

I feel a sense of schadenfreude when one of his minions is caught in a lie or criminal behavior. I hope Flynn, Papadopoulos, Manafort and Gates get their just desserts. Though Trump promised “100%” to testify under oath if requested, we all know he “just says stuff”. I still would love to see him testify under oath and watch him squirm trying to reconcile all the lies and contradictory statements he’s made.

I simply disagree with minimizing lying under oath to a judge. It may be understandable to want to avoid embarrassment, but our judicial system is based on honest testimony under oath, so much so that the mere act of lying to a judge, or congress, or the FBI is a crime in and of itself.

I do not hold a Paula Jones to be some sort of feminist icon or role model. But especially in light of today’s “me too” movement, I’m surprised to see that a man lying to a judge to deny her her just compensation for an alleged wrong can be so easily minimized and/or justified just because the liar is “your guy”.

As an aside, avoiding a “perjury trap” is not hard to do - just tell the truth!
Click to expand...
Part of me says, OK fine. And the other part of me says, no, just no.

Have you ever been divorced? Fought for child custody? Do you equate that sadly very common norm of no one being prosecuted for lying in custody or divorce cases, (which sometimes are atrocious lies, don't get me wrong), with lying about conspiring with a foreign government to influence an election?

Let's put this in perspective, not all perjury is the same. You lie in custody case that your spouse sexually abused the kids: that should be prosecutable. But are we going to prosecute every parent who testifies with a tad too much hyperbole about the other parent's failings as a parent?

If we're going to equate spouses that no longer get along bitching under oath about each other with parents accusing the other of serious crimes in order to manipulate custody decisions, well... hopefully you get the point.

So Clinton was entrapped into lying under oath about cheating on his wife and you are going to equate that perjury with Trump et al lying about working with Russian agents to manipulate our democratic process? And you don't see a problem with that equivalency?
 
CORed said:
... I don't really see Trump getting tossed for talking to Russians, certainly not unless the midterms result in a lot more Democrats in the Senate than anybody expects at this point.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's because you think this is about "talking to Russians" that you don't get the problem.

Notice that an Australian diplomat and a retired British intelligence agent were so concerned about the Russians hacking DNC emails that they felt the need to report what they discovered to the FBI.

Notice that Donnie Jr, Kushner, and other Trump campaign staff discovered the same thing and thought, cool. :rolleyes:

Think about it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Clinton lied about an affair under oath: Impeach!!! Impeach!!!

How many people are we up to now from Trump's inner circle who lied on federal security clearance forms about meetings with Russian officials, lied in Congressional hearings about meetings with Russian officials, failed to report knowledge of the crime of hacking the DNC or of Russians trying to influence the election, or, failed to register as foreign agents?

No problem, nothing to see here, move along. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yup. Clinton, in an investigation of 20 year- old real estate deals may have lied about a consensual affair that occurred 20 years after the purported subject of the investigation. Much different than several of trump's closest associates lying under oath about illegal dealings with an adversarial foreign power that has been shown to have at lest attempted to subvert national sovereignty.
 
autumn1971 said:
Yup. Clinton, in an investigation of 20 year- old real estate deals may have lied about a consensual affair that occurred 20 years after the purported subject of the investigation. Much different than several of trump's closest associates lying under oath about illegal dealings with an adversarial foreign power that has been shown to have at lest attempted to subvert national sovereignty.
Click to expand...

The biggest difference is that it's not the president doing it. Because Clinton was impeached for something he actually did, you want Trump to be impeached for things other people did. How is that rational?
 
theprestige said:
The biggest difference is that it's not the president doing it. Because Clinton was impeached for something he actually did, you want Trump to be impeached for things other people did. How is that rational?
Click to expand...

In the same way that Regan claiming he had no knowledge of years of federal crimes being committed by people he regularly met with and issued orders to, it at least heavily implies an inability to hold the office. Clinton quibbling his way out of an irrelevant question was not in any way an indication of unfitness. Trump lacking any control at all over his hand-picked team is a sign of either gross incompetence or willing participation.
Also, we're not at war with Russia, so none of Trump's actions can be described as "treasonous". That is gross hyperbole.
 
autumn1971 said:
Clinton quibbling his way out of an irrelevant question...
Click to expand...

Fascinating how a violation of Federal Law can be downplayed.

It showed one thing: that President Clinton's testimony under oath going forward would forever have to be viewed with the knowledge that he might choose to perjure himself whenever he found it suited his needs.

That was an important thing to know about his character.
 
autumn1971 said:
Clinton quibbling his way out of an irrelevant question was not in any way an indication of unfitness.
Click to expand...

The quibble was in fact perjury, a literal crime. And certainly the state of Arkansas thought it was an indication of unfitness; they suspended his law license because of it.

Whether it was an indication of unfitness for the presidency is highly debatable. Indeed, Congress debated it formally and at length.

Trump lacking any control at all over his hand-picked team is a sign of either gross incompetence or willing participation.
Click to expand...
And this right here is the impeachment porn. The left keeps titillating itself with these fantasy narratives about The One Thing That Will End Trump For Real This Time, eking out a measure of frisson each time. But they're still just fantasies.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
"directly or indirectly suspected"

A year in, folks. A year in, and this is the best they have.

Indirectly suspected. Might as well just admit to being addicted to truthiness.
Click to expand...
I used the term "indirectly suspected" because we know of multiple ties by various individuals within the Trump campaign to Russia. We know people working with the Trump campaign admitted to meetings with Russian associates, which they failed to disclose, and a topic of the meeting was partly about the Russians providing "dirt" on Hillary. Certainly indicates a willingness to engage in crime at the bare minimum (even if nothing of value was discussed at the meeting).

What we don't have (at least as outside observers) is whether Trump himself knew or engaged in the meeting (hence the "indirect" part). Its certainly possible that deals with Russia were made without his knowledge, hence the "indirect" part. But Trump himself would still have benefited by his campaign's collusion with Russia, even if he were unaware of the details.

I always find it amazing about how the fans of a racist orangutan think that just because they don't have a video of Trump giving Putin oral sex while Putin personally hacks into the Democrat's email server that somehow they "have nothing". The truth is, they have a lot of evidence that illegal activities were going on (much of which has been corroborated from multiple sources). Its just the depth of the scandal that needs to be determined.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Of course, the most politically expedient thing for the Dems would be to have Donny actually remain in the big chair until the next election period, and NOT impeach him. The longer he stays there, the more everything goes backwards for him, his dimwit family, and the GOP.

If the agony can be borne and drawn out long enough, Trump will be reduced actual public willy-waving on live TV in defiance of Kim Jong Un, He will be unable to speak in whole words let alone sentences, he will be eating his pureed cheeseburgers through a nasal tube, and the slightest sign of a speck of dust or Bannon (both much the same, actually) will cause paroxysms of gorilla-like roars and chest-beating.

In short, Donny will be the reason why the GOP will never have a chance of being the conservative face of the USA ever again. Hopefully something more realistic and sensible will arise instead.


I live in hope...
Click to expand...
I'm up for republickers just having paroxysms and unable to further function.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Clinton lied about an affair under oath: Impeach!!! Impeach!!!

How many people are we up to now from Trump's inner circle who lied on federal security clearance forms about meetings with Russian officials, lied in Congressional hearings about meetings with Russian officials, failed to report knowledge of the crime of hacking the DNC or of Russians trying to influence the election, or, failed to register as foreign agents?

No problem, nothing to see here, move along. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You don’t think lying under oath in a sexual harassment suit is a big deal?
I do although I didn’t think he should have been impeached at the time.
 
Speaking of not registering as a foreign agent, did Christopher Steele register as one? If not, should he have? He was a retired spy for a foreign government/MI6, no?

Speaking of Clinton - I think Stormy Daniels is a break-even thanks to Bill. Nobody will care about a guy having an affair years ago when we had one getting hummers in the oval office.

Hilarious really - the same people who voted for Hillary,and probably Bill if they are old enough, are complaining about Trumps sexual activities from before he was President. Good stuff.
 
Last edited:
mgidm86 said:
Speaking of not registering as a foreign agent, did Christopher Steele register as one? If not, should he have? He was a retired spy for a foreign government/MI6, no?
Click to expand...

The Foreign Agents Registration Act "requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities." Steele was not acting as an agent for any foreign principle.

mgidm86 said:
Speaking of Clinton - I think Stormy Daniels is a break-even thanks to Bill. Nobody will care about a guy having an affair years ago when we had one getting hummers in the oval office.

Hilarious really - the same people who voted for Hillary,and probably Bill if they are old enough, are complaining about Trumps sexual activities from before he was President. Good stuff.
Click to expand...

I think your analogies are pretty hilarious, but how about the more serious "complaining," like how sleazy and how blackmailable Trump is? Maybe not all of them would want hush money. Hilarious, huh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom