Johnson by a wide margin. While one may criticize the Tenure of Office Act on procedural grounds, it’s pretty obvious he violated it, and therefore deserved to be impeached.
Clinton was guilty of perjury, and I would have voted accordingly, but I also think the investigation into his sex life was irrelevant and bullsh–t anyway.
The two Trump impeachments were, in the first place, red-baiting; and in the second, an obvious attempt to silence and served as the pretext for blatant censorship, so they were HP moves.
Your obvious falsehoods aside, how do you really get away with labelling something a "terrorist" attack when the protestors never even brandished firearms? It was a pathetic outburst that took up an afternoon, got dispersed within a few hours, and since then nothing has happened. Lamest "terrorist" attack of all time.
Nothing in its definition about needing a firearm 🙄
So much violence, in fact, that the only confirmed violent death in the entire ordeal was an unarmed Trump supporter. And before you respond, Officer Sicknick's death is still officially of unknown causes, any allegations of assault notwithstanding.
Johnson by a wide margin. While one may criticize the Tenure of Office Act on procedural grounds, it’s pretty obvious he violated it, and therefore deserved to be impeached.
Clinton was guilty of perjury, and I would have voted accordingly, but I also think the investigation into his sex life was irrelevant and bullsh–t anyway.
The two Trump impeachments were, in the first place, red-baiting; and in the second, an obvious attempt to silence and served as the pretext for blatant censorship, so they were HP moves.
1. The Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional nonsense. That’s not “procedural grounds.” And moreover, it wasn’t even clear Johnson did violate it, given how vague and poorly worded it was. Plus Johnson didn’t even appoint Stanton and the protection was only supposed to apply for one month after a new president took office.
2. Clinton did not commit perjury. Joke all you want about “depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” but he was actually right: He only said under oath that he didn’t currently have a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, not that he never had one. He also didn’t have sexual relations with her as the term was defined by the court (intercourse, not BJs). Only thing we do agree on is that the investigation into his sex life was BS.
3. Red-baiting? What in the f—k are you talking about??? Do you not remember what Trump was even impeached for the first time? It was only a year ago! Reminder: He was impeached for pressuring a foreign nation (Ukraine) into interfering with the election by opening a bogus investigation into his opponent. Literally no part of this has anything to do with “reds.” It doesn’t matter what country he did this to, from Canada to China, it was a blatantly illegal act and abuse of power. And even if it was related to Russia, as I’m guessing you’re thinking for some reason, “red-baiting” doesn’t apply unless you want to argue that Putin’s Russia is a communist country. Would you like to make that argument? Because that would be VERY amusing.
4. Blatant censorship? What??? This is even more outlandish than your previous claim, and more inexcusable as this happened even more recently. Are you trying to argue that Trump being impeached for inciting a violent, fascist insurrection intended to overthrow our democratic government was merely a pretext to kick him off Twitter (which happened before he was impeached and cannot be censorship as Twitter is a private platform)?? Dumbest BS I have ever read in my life. YOU are the “HP,” Abe.
1. The act was pretty clear that Johnson could not remove an executive officer appointed by a president and confirmed by the Senate, without Senate approval. Stanton was an executive officer appointed by a president and confirmed by the Senate, and then removed by Johnson without Senate approval. You can claim it was "unconstitutional," but no federal court ever ruled on it before it was repealed, and incumbents do not get to ignore acts of Congress on the notion they may be hypothetically deemed unconstitutional at some point.
2. Federal law stipulates that, in order for a statement to be perjurious, the person "willfully and contrary to such oath state or subscribe any material matter which he does not believe to be true." You can mince words all you want, but Clinton knew he was lying. You want to blame the Tenure of Office Act for being "vague and poorly worded" but then defend Clinton on these same terms?
3. Yes, "red-baiting," i.e. tying him to the Russiagate nonsense once again, portraying him as a "stooge of Putin," a conspiracy theory pushed by Dem hacks like yourself which has long since been discredited, as it's pretty obvious the real outrage over the Zelensky call was that he had (gasp!) temporarily withholding "aid" (i.e. lethal weaponry) to a government which is a
key pawn in the "second cold war" being fomented by the United States by bringing American red-lines to Russian borders. I've already expounded on this in great detail in other posts of mine elsewhere, going all the way back to a debate a had with Karpatsky on the Donbass situation some years ago, but suffice it to say here is the run-down:
The United States government, in negotiations with Premier Gorbachev in the later eighties, had indeed promised that NATO would "not move an inch to the east" following the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the re-unification of Germany. Not only was this move completely violated, but indeed NATO was expanded all the way up to Russia's backdoor by incorporating even former Soviet republics. Imagine, for a second, if America was on the "losing" side of the Cold War, the USSR had assured Washington that the Warsaw Pact would not extend into its sphere of influence, and then almost immediately began pressing for a "Moscow Consensus" in the Western Hemisphere and expanded Russian military presence into Central and South America. Quite obviously, this would be seen as a provocation, and rightly so. To make matters worse, America has continuously interfered in Russian affairs since the collapse, ensuring the election of Yeltsin against his non-neoliberal opponents, for example. It has also had a concerted effort of trying to "peel off" the Ukraine from Eastern influence and integrate it into the Western neoliberal system, a move which, no doubt, will not be accepted by the Russians.
Now, you might be reading by this point and thinking "what the hell does any of this have to do with Trump?" Well, it shines some light on
why the Zelensky call was so unanimously opposed as it was. Allegations of "treason" were central to the impeachment articles. In order to have engaged in treason in the first place, one must have acted to further the interests of a nation with which the U.S. is in a state of conflict — thereby “endangering our lives and those of our allies,” in the words of the report’s authors. Clearly, the “ally” in this scenario is Ukraine, and the “adversary” is Russia. It also conflates American national security with that of the Ukraine, which makes no sense, unless of course you see it through the context I have described above. I mean hell, even Pelosi, the architect of impeachment herself, claimed it never really
was about Ukraine, it was about Russia! Well of course, the core tenets of the Mueller probe trying to sneak his way back in once again, despite having been exhaustively analyzed and summarily debunked.
4. I've already talked about the hyperbolic labels thrown at the Capitol storming (apparently it's "fascist" now, as though those MAGA doofuses had
any coherent ideology), but neither you, the Democratic Senators, nor any one else was ever able to justify this notion that Trump somehow "incited" it. Let's ignore for a moment that baseless accusations of "inciting insurrections" have been used for centuries to repress "political dissidents," but the have not managed to draw up
one instance of Trump somehow encouraging a breaking and entry into the Capitol building beyond him telling his supporters in a speech to "fight like hell." Well, every politician tells their supporters to "fight" for one cause or another, so that isn't much of an indictment. Yes, Trump encouraged a
protest and demonstration at the Capitol, which is perfectly within his constitutional right and within his supporters' constitutional rights to freedom of assembly, no matter how ridiculous their "stop the steal" beliefs are. No evidence at all he ever commanded them to "overthrow the government" or anything of that sort and, what's more, he denounced them and told them to go home before the storming was even over. What a pathetic excuse for an "insurrectionary leader"!
As for the censorship thing: it isn't just Twitter. I know normie Dems such as yourselves love to use the "but they're a private company" argument (which, ironically enough, could be use to discriminate against
anyone so long as it isn't being committed by the government, but I digress), but the fact of the matter is that the established corporate tyranny and monopoly of tech companies' digital platforms - Facebook, Google, Apple, whatever - have far more power at this point than most governments around the world. Before Trump supporters could even
attempt to go to a competitor of Twitter, it was already banned from the servers which they own. You can scream "this isn't censorship" all you want, but I have a feeling that if you found yourself on the receiving end of it, you'd be singing a different tune.
Poll
