*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Pelosi's proceedings are laid out basically the same as the Nixon proceedings. Still, the Congressional R's are crying foul play. Turns out they're upset because the Clinton case was blown open as a part of a much wider investigation, so the Clinton impeachment proceedings started with a ton more general knowledge of the facts by both parties. Whereas in the Nixon case and the current case, the closed door investigations have whatever info they have that is not on the public record at this point in the process.

There's no real precedent for impeachment proceedings, though*.. so if the R's argue that the availability of information in the Clinton case was good for everyone, then I'm open to changing the rules. They just have to swallow that pill the next time a Dem POTUS is on the hot seat. Which I'm fine with.

It wont change the fact that closed door investigations nearly always precede any open, formal investigations, and if the R's are crying that this is foul play, then that's nonsense. We definitely want to quietly weed out false and spurious claims from getting undue attention and this is done via closed door investigations.


* I mean, yes, there is the legal framework and there are a few instances where it's happened, but I don't think the current political climate puts too much weight on that. As I mentioned before, Trump got elected for things that Andrew Johnson got impeached for, so using the Johnson impeachment as a standard wont be a clean fit.
Nixon had lost his party's support by the time it got that far, whereas Trump still has his party's and his base's support.
Clinton lied about sex in public in America. While under oath! Yeah. That was juicy, right? It's nothing like this case, though, so treating it like a precedent is again, not a clean fit.

[Poopadoop]

Pelosi's proceedings are laid out basically the same as the Nixon proceedings.

My understanding is Pelosi's proceedings are more 'generous' in that Nixon wasn't invited to testify/cross-examine at his, which I'm sure he could have done better than Trump had it come to that.

And yeah, if you can impeach a guy for lying about a blowjob you can impeach another guy for holding up foreign aid in return for getting dirt on a political opponent. Even Watergate looks tame compared to that. Both were shady election shit, but Trump's has serious consequences for foreign policy whereas Nixon's didn't.

[MadMojoMonkey]

And yeah, if you can impeach a guy for lying about a blowjob you can impeach another guy for holding up foreign aid in return for getting dirt on a political opponent. Even Watergate looks tame compared to that.

I don't think you can directly link those 2 things. While on paper the Clinton scandal was an impeachment proceeding, I don't think it's really the best comparison for what's going on today. The Ukraine scandal is much more like Nixon's watergate than an inconsequential lie under oath.
We'll see, at any rate.

Americans are screeching harpys when it comes to a couple of things. 1) Americans are shady AF when it comes to talking about sex. Even couples who've been having sex for years probably don't talk about it much if at all. 2) Catching someone in a personal lie that shows they have some insecurity is blood in the water.

Clinton got caught in a lie, and that lie was about sex. America was frothing at the mouth. The fact that he did so while under oath was just pouring gas on the flame.
He was cheating on his wife. Lol obv. he lies about that. BUT he did so while under oath. It just ticked all the boxes for Americans to put on our holier-than-thou hats and riot.
Most people didn't actually care, but were entertained by the noise. Most people didn't even know at the time that he was impeached. I'd wager that most people today don't think Clinton was impeached, since he never left office, and that's the one thing Americans know about impeachment: It's how you de-president someone.

When it comes to Trump... keep in mind that the Congressional R's and his Rep base are still in support of Trump. Clinton's supporters were not defending him that hard when it came to his lie. He was caught on tape, in a court of law. The meaning of the word "is" got brought into question. How is it not great fun to mock that? Dems were mocking Clinton, but not really turning against him politically. No one on the D side really was ever planning on kicking him out of office, AFAIK. It was just a glorious shit show that everyone could cash in on for some press time and so it went.


Looking back, it's hard to see the Clinton impeachment as anything other than a huge publicity stunt, though none of the people that gained from the publicity really had any hand in creating the stunt... but they sure had a hand in prolonging the attention it got. It didn't even really hurt Bill long-term and Hillary remained a political powerhouse after the humiliation of the cheating scandal subsided.