Is the extortion of an allied country to investigate a political opponent an impeachable offense by the President?

[RikidyBones]

I've already stated that an economic downturn would be a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things in order to rid the world of Trump.
I would much prefer to rid ourselves of Trump without an economic downturn.

^^^ I'd like to provide everyone with a classic example of someone who is privileged thinking the rest of us should fall in line.

 

[JCP201]

If it is truly the way that Kent and Taylor portrayed this, then it is definitely an impeachable offense.

This aid was already approved to be given to Ukraine
Withholding the aid may have caused people in Ukraine to die.
Trump withheld it because he was worried about a political rival beating him in the polls and wanted dirt. (why not go through the proper channels otherwise?)
All roads with Trump still seemingly lead to Russia.
Trump and Ukraine President said no pressure, but the Ukraine president felt like he had to go on CNN and talk publicly about Biden to get his money.
When whistle blower complaint came out and Congress finding out was inevitable, then the money is released.

I don't pretend to be a political expert, but that sounds quite a bit worse than Bill Clinton telling a lie about sexing with Monica Lewinski.

Do we really want to set this precedent for the future? Also, if Trump is this blatantly corrupt close to an election year, what kind of monster will we get when he can't be voted out of office?

 

[1972 Grad]

Cleveland isn't that bad these days. I'm up there 4-5 times a year and it's not bad at all. Wouldn't want to live there of course.

Get on Euclid Avenue about 30th and ride it about 50 blocks.

 

[Sin City Vol]

The better question is, if nothing was done wrong then why tell members of your staff to ignore subpoenas??? Secondly, why aren’t those people arrested?
mid ha got nothing to hide then why so much hiding?

As far as the transcripts go it was a summary provided by the person under investigation. Why not just release the exact transcript?

 

[luthervol]

^^^ I'd like to provide everyone with a classic example of someone who is privileged thinking the rest of us should fall in line.

????
It's just my personal belief, and always has been, that the damage Trump brings ultimately outweighs any perceived short term economic benefits.

 

[RockyTop85]

But why go thru the dance you two did? From Sam’s post history I absolutely believe he would have said “yes that’s impeachable but I see no proof” however he had to couch his answer with a tad of whataboutism (sorry Sam...) to express his view here.

When you engaged me on this you asked a direct question. I was wasn’t limited in my reply range and it was a pointed question. Would I have a problem with personal quid pro quo if it occurred. And I answered directly, yes I would however I don’t see this rising to that level. You and I don’t agree in this that’s clear. But I understand where you’re coming from you articulated your view. And I articulated mine and you put no limiters on my response range to the direct question asked. It’s the most straight forward and direct exchange method. Why waste time on this BS approach and try to insert a view on me that isn’t mine? The OP did exactly that because if all four options were offered the spectrum would be about 10:1 on “yes that’s a problem but I don’t see any proof it occurred” to the other three responses. The OP couldn’t stand to see that, so he created his safe space poll.

A final statement to prove my point. We’ve spent more wasted bandwidth in this thread discussing the lack of all relevant choices than debating the topic. That clearly indicates a failed discussion premise to any reasonable person I’d submit.

I feel like our wires are crossed. This is how I phrased the question, to which Sam responded:

What conduct would convince you that Trump should be removed from office?

There’s no inserted view or “gotcha” in that.

I understand your beef with the OP.

 

[luthervol]

Do we really want to set this precedent for the future? Also, if Trump is this blatantly corrupt close to an election year, what kind of monster will we get when he can't be voted out of office?

We can't afford to find out the answer.

 

[ajvol01]

I will go with zero. What are you going to go with?

You might want to reconsider based on facts & data.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I feel like our wires are crossed. This is how I phrased the question, to which Sam responded:

There’s no inserted view or “gotcha” in that.

I understand your beef with the OP.

Yeah I wasn’t accusing you of that. Just still referring this waste of bandwidth thread. I’m not arguing an open ended question CAN’T result in a useful exchange. I will submit it has a snowball’s chance in hell of doing so here in the PF though and just think more direct dialog yields more fruit

 

[n_huffhines]

Considering that’s part of politics at almost every level, I’d say no. If Obama can give Iran 2 billion in cash without impeachment, then what Trump did should be left alone as well.

It was their money. The $2B was theirs.

 

[PointGuard]

I will go with zero. What are you going to go with?

another thread off the rails with right wing bs

Don’t let the facts confuse ya’

 

[n_huffhines]

I voted “no.”

Trump isn’t the brightest bulb in the lamp store. But let’s not pretend he’s the first President who has ever used a strong arm tactic against an ally to achieve a desired outcome.

The only “crime” he’s committed is that he wasn’t clever enough to not get caught.

Nobody is saying he is the first. The question is about whether or not extortion for political gain is impeachable. How commonplace we estimate it is does not matter. Whether or not it's a "crime" doesn't matter. He's the most powerful man in the world. Are you OK with this kind of corruption at the highest level?

 

[hog88]

It was their money. The $2B was theirs.

Should have shorted them a billion.

Ex-American hostages in Iran will receive compensation - CNN

 

[Mick]

You might want to reconsider based on facts & data.

Oh, I didn't know Ukraine bought Uranium one.

 

[hUTch2002]

See @NorthDallas40 ? Useful discussion.

I now know that Sam unabashedly holds Democrats to a different standard than Trump (I.e. misappropriation of charitable donations is an impeachable offense for one and not the other) and has a lower burden of proof for one than the other.

It seems safe to assume that literally nothing will surmount his subjective standard of proof and, likely, no crime would ever be sufficient to warrant impeachment of Trump.

This is useful to me because I know enough about what Sam’s opinion is that I don’t need to hear any more.

Seems to me there are lowered burdens of proof on both sides. Whether right or left, most people seem to default to believing any story with which they agree, even if full of hearsay and conjecture, and claim no proof when discussing a story with which they do not agree. I’m sure that I’ve done the same at some point despite efforts to the contrary. We are all human after all, well except Luther. I kid, I kid.

 

[ajvol01]

Oh, I didn't know Ukraine bought Uranium one.

Reading is hard.

How much Clinton Foundation money and influence played a part in Fusion GPS, Uranium One, etc?

 

[hUTch2002]

I’m going to use the Bill Clinton defense here:

Everybody else does it, why is it an issue now?

So far there no evidence that he did “it”, whatever “it” is today.

 

[Mick]

Reading is hard.

It must be since your post didn't address the question at all now did it? If the question was how much money have individuals given, broken down by country and amount, to the Clinton Foundation you would have nailed it.

 

[SamRebel35]

See @NorthDallas40 ? Useful discussion.

I now know that Sam unabashedly holds Democrats to a different standard than Trump (I.e. misappropriation of charitable donations is an impeachable offense for one and not the other) and has a lower burden of proof for one than the other.

It seems safe to assume that literally nothing will surmount his subjective standard of proof and, likely, no crime would ever be sufficient to warrant impeachment of Trump.

This is useful to me because I know enough about what Sam’s opinion is that I don’t need to hear any more.

Honestly, I'm very confused at how you think I'm exercising a double standard. I'm literally saying that if Trump does what Clinton or Obama did then he should be punished. That's the exact opposite of a double standard.

 

[hUTch2002]

If it is truly the way that Kent and Taylor portrayed this, then it is definitely an impeachable offense.

This aid was already approved to be given to Ukraine
Withholding the aid may have caused people in Ukraine to die.
Trump withheld it because he was worried about a political rival beating him in the polls and wanted dirt. (why not go through the proper channels otherwise?)
All roads with Trump still seemingly lead to Russia.
Trump and Ukraine President said no pressure, but the Ukraine president felt like he had to go on CNN and talk publicly about Biden to get his money.
When whistle blower complaint came out and Congress finding out was inevitable, then the money is released.

I don't pretend to be a political expert, but that sounds quite a bit worse than Bill Clinton telling a lie about sexing with Monica Lewinski.

Do we really want to set this precedent for the future? Also, if Trump is this blatantly corrupt close to an election year, what kind of monster will we get when he can't be voted out of office?

Come on JCP. You seem to be an intelligent person. How often have the extreme stories been true on either side? You’ll never be able to prove that anything Trump did caused people in Ukraine to die and Trump certainly isn’t a Russian asset. Whether you agree or not, Trump will go to his grave saying he’s investigating 2016 corruption and there’s absolutely no way to prove otherwise without having a recording proving otherwise. What’s funny to me is why even interview Taylor? He isn’t a direct witness to anything and they already have his testimony so what’s the point in interviewing him today?

 

[ajvol01]

It must be since your post didn't address the question at all now did it? If the question was how much money have individuals given, broken down by country and amount, to the Clinton Foundation you would have nailed it.

If you don’t understand the Clinton ties to Ukraine and 2016 election interference then you might want to start reading up on it.

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

 

[JCP201]

Come on JCP. You seem to be an intelligent person. How often have the extreme stories been true on either side? You’ll never be able to prove that anything Trump did caused people in Ukraine to die and Trump certainly isn’t a Russian asset. Whether you agree or not, Trump will go to his grave saying he’s investigating 2016 corruption and there’s absolutely no way to prove otherwise without having a recording proving otherwise. What’s funny to me is why even interview Taylor? He isn’t a direct witness to anything and they already have his testimony so what’s the point in interviewing him today?

It would definitely be great to hear first-hand testimony from the witnesses they’re blocking from testifying.

 

[SamRebel35]

Honestly, I'm very confused at how you think I'm exercising a double standard. I'm literally saying that if Trump does what Clinton or Obama did then he should be punished. That's the exact opposite of a double standard.

If anything, it means I'm willing to hold Trump to a higher standard than Clinton or Obama ever were.

 

[Mick]

If you don’t understand the Clinton ties to Ukraine and 2016 election interference then you might want to start reading up on it.

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

So now it's individuals from Ukraine paid the Clinton Foundation to interfere in the 2016 election? How deep are you going to dig to hide the fact your meme had nothing to do with the Question asked by Ras?

 

[luthervol]

Seems to me there are lowered burdens of proof on both sides. Whether right or left, most people seem to default to believing any story with which they agree, even if full of hearsay and conjecture, and claim no proof when discussing a story with which they do not agree. I’m sure that I’ve done the same at some point despite efforts to the contrary. We are all human after all, well except Luther. I kid, I kid.

There is no doubt that it's far easier to believe what you want to believe than what you would rather not believe.
I want to believe that Trump is guilty and the facts are making that incredibly easy.
The ones wanting to believe Trump is not guilty are having the greater struggle.

 

[hUTch2002]

It would definitely be great to hear first-hand testimony from the witnesses they’re blocking from testifying.

The thing is that the Dems know this isn’t going anywhere but that isn’t the point anyway. The point isn’t to get Trump out mid-term, the point is to cast so much doubt in the minds of the swing voters that he gets voted out next year. Anyone that thinks this is about removing Trump from office before 2021 is fooling themselves. There’s not enough evidence to get him out and not one Democrat in the House cares.