The Impeachment Thread

#15,401
#15,401
Weezer said:
Can you please link me to this proof? Everything I've read seems more like personal interpretation of events or hearsay. If concrete evidence exists, I'd like to see it. And no, I'm not being an ass. I'm open to the argument of impeachment, but show me definitive proof. I've not seen that presented yet.
Click to expand...
Ying Yang
 
#15,402
#15,402
hUTch2002 said:
Actually, what’ll happen is Les will deliver “bombshell” testimony that is “extremely damaging” to Trump and every bit of it will either be taken out of context, conjecture, and basically anything but one shred of evidence that Trump did anything wrong. You know, the usual. By the way, when will Dr Ford be testifying? Oh wait, that was the Kavanaugh thing. It’s hard to keep all these BS hearings straight.
Click to expand...

I think you"ve got the future talking points wrong. It'll be something like, "you can't trust the testimony of a criminal"... then something about the timing be suspicious... yada yada..
 
#15,405
#15,405
zeppelin128 said:
This comparison of Trump to Clinton gets really old. Some of us were still playing with action figures and watching cartoons when the Clinton impeachment trial was ongoing.

Did Trump do something to warrant impeachment? This is the question. What does Bill have to do with any of it?
Click to expand...
Precedent. There have only been 2 impeachments in 44 Presidents prior to Trump.

It’s not normal. It’s not something to be done because the media and Hollywood dislikes Trump. It’s not something that’s being done to help American citizens.
 
#15,406
#15,406
zeppelin128 said:
This comparison of Trump to Clinton gets really old. Some of us were still playing with action figures and watching cartoons when the Clinton impeachment trial was ongoing.

Did Trump do something to warrant impeachment? This is the question. What does Bill have to do with any of it?
Click to expand...
I didn't bring it up. It was being discussed. And Clinton admitted to his guilt so I'm not sure how anyone can question it. The only real question is why wasn't he removed from office after breaking the law? The only answer that comes to mind is he was above the law. It certainly wasn't because he was innocent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad and tennvols77
#15,407
#15,407
Weezer said:
I didn't bring it up. It was being discussed. And Clinton admitted to his guilt so I'm not sure how anyone can question it. The only real question is why wasn't he removed from office after breaking the law? The only answer that comes to mind is he was above the law. It certainly wasn't because he was innocent.
Click to expand...
It’s because the trial in the Senate didn’t get 67 votes.
 
#15,408
#15,408
BowlBrother85 said:
Impeachment is by its nature a political process. Of course, the underlying offense is central to the process, but you can't remove the political element. You have politicians deciding the political fate of a fellow politician. Individual biases and party affiliation will always be important. The ability for a politician to remain popular with their constituency following a high profile vote, such as impeachment, is of course, going to have political considerations - and that is where polls come into play. After being impeached in 1998, Bill Clinton's approval ratings went way up and Newt Gingrich's went way down. Gingrich left office in January of 1999. He was basically forced out by his fellow Republicans in the House, who could see that he had overreached with impeachment. They should have settled on a censure.

If you haven't seen any damning evidence of Trump's abuse of power and the bribery of a foreign leader? It's because you aren't looking for it.
Click to expand...
So many words... and just not a lot of substance... just more hate speech,

I hope the hell you and your bros are donating all gains, to the illegals and to other liberals issues, from your 401k and retirement funds that Trump is handing you, because you and your socialist bros do not deserve to benefit from his economy. Right? You understand that... correct?

Or are you just the idiot that you seem to be on this forum?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#15,409
#15,409
hUTch2002 said:
The better question is why is it ok for Biden, who is on video admitting it, to do it and continue running for President if it is so wrong? And so far there still is no evidence of any quid pro quo by Trump, just conjecture.
Click to expand...
This question has been answered at least 120 times over the course of this thread.

At this point you’re either pretending to not understand it or you’re incapable of understanding it.

Either way, why would anybody answer your questions?
 
#15,410
#15,410
Weezer said:
What does popularity have to do with breaking the law? Or are you suggesting Bill Clinton didn't lie under oath when he denied a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky? Or that he didn't encourage her to lie about it as well? Clear cut perjury and obstruction, and he wasn't removed from office. I'm not opposed to a Trump impeachment, but I've yet to see evidence as damning as that in the Clinton case presented. And considering the actual guilt of Clinton, and the refusal of the Dems to remove him from office because of that guilt, I question how anyone can be upset if the GOP controlled Senate refuses to own up to any guilt on Trump's part. That's what politics has become. If your okay with how things went in the Clinton case, I'm not sure how you can be opposed to nothing happening to Trump. Hell, Clinton even admitted his guilt. But some people are above the law.

If you want Trump out of office, beat him in the election. At this point, the Dems are just as guilty of tearing the system apart as Trump, if not more so. At least IMO.
Click to expand...

Follow up question: What does breaking the law have to do with impeachment?

Popularity is more relevant than whether the statutory elements of a crime can be proven.
 
#15,411
#15,411
BowlBrother85 said:
Impeachment is by its nature a political process. Of course, the underlying offense is central to the process, but you can't remove the political element. You have politicians deciding the political fate of a fellow politician. Individual biases and party affiliation will always be important. The ability for a politician to remain popular with their constituency following a high profile vote, such as impeachment, is of course, going to have political considerations - and that is where polls come into play. After being impeached in 1998, Bill Clinton's approval ratings went way up and Newt Gingrich's went way down. Gingrich left office in January of 1999. He was basically forced out by his fellow Republicans in the House, who could see that he had overreached with impeachment. They should have settled on a censure.

If you haven't seen any damning evidence of Trump's abuse of power and the bribery of a foreign leader? It's because you aren't looking for it.
Click to expand...
Addressing the last statement first, I've seen things to suggest it's a possibility, but nothing that's 100% concrete evidence of guilt. Most of what I've seen lends itself to what each side wants to believe. From your response, I'm guessing you can't lead me to a truly damning statement, which supports what I've said about interpretation.

As for the first part, when impeachment is in play, it should not be about popularity. That's ludicrous. The Constitution clearly spells out how and why a President or any other official should be impeached from office and no where does it mention "popularity" as a cause. Is perjury and obstruction a "high crime or misdemeanor"? Before Clinton, I would have said absolutely. As I said previously, Clinton was guilty. He admitted it. He wasn't found innocent. My personal opinion, by letting Clinton off and failing to remove him from office, Congress failed to fulfill their Constitutional duties. It should never have been about his politics or his popularity. Did he commit the crimes of which he was accused? And the answer was a resounding yes. And if you can prove the same true of Trump, then I firmly support removing him from office.

The problem with our government today is just ingrained political support is in the system. Politicians get away with crimes because of their political clout. They are held above the law, above the average citizen. That's not the way the system is supposed to work. The law is supposed to apply to everyone, equally. In a country where everyone is supposed to be equal, we've created a ruling class that is allowed to flaunt the law simply because they have support for their politics. At least that's how I see it.
 
#15,412
#15,412
Weezer said:
I didn't bring it up. It was being discussed. And Clinton admitted to his guilt so I'm not sure how anyone can question it. The only real question is why wasn't he removed from office after breaking the law? The only answer that comes to mind is he was above the law. It certainly wasn't because he was innocent.
Click to expand...
Nah, he wasn't convicted by the Senate. Same that will happen with Trump.
 
#15,414
#15,414
RockyTop85 said:
Follow up question: What does breaking the law have to do with impeachment?

Popularity is more relevant than whether the statutory elements of a crime can be proven.
Click to expand...
I've addressed this in another post, but no one should be above the law, not even a President. And the Constitution provides the impeachment clause which clearly states why a President should be removed from office, and popularity is not included.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#15,415
#15,415
zeppelin128 said:
Nah, he wasn't convicted by the Senate. Same that will happen with Trump.
Click to expand...
And he wasn't convicted by the Senate because of politics. If they had taken into account whether or not he was guilty of the accused crimes, which Constitutionally they should have done, he would have been found guilty. What good is the Constitution if we refuse to enforce it?

My argument against Bill Clinton isn't about him being a Democrat. He committed a crime, a crime that would have sent another man to prison. And he wasn't even removed from office for it. And some people seem okay with that. Do you believe it's okay for people to commit crimes as long as they're Democrats? I wouldn't think so. So the question then becomes, why was it okay for Bill Clinton?
 
#15,416
#15,416
Weezer said:
I've addressed this in another post, but no one should be above the law, not even a President. And the Constitution provides the impeachment clause which clearly states why a President should be removed from office, and popularity is not included.
Click to expand...
Popularity was included when they gave the responsibility to the senate. They talk about it in the federalist papers.
 
#15,418
#15,418
Weezer said:
The Federalist Papers aren't the Constitution. They aren't the law of the land.
Click to expand...
They made the choice to give it to the senate knowing that it would involve popular support in the removal process. It wasn’t an unintended consequence. It was structured that way.

Meeting the statutory definition of a crime isn’t in there either, but that’s your criteria. The vagueness of high crimes and misdemeanors was also a nod to the necessity for public support as was the requirement of a supermajority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#15,419
#15,419
Weezer said:
And he wasn't convicted by the Senate because of politics. If they had taken into account whether or not he was guilty of the accused crimes, which Constitutionally they should have done, he would have been found guilty. What good is the Constitution if we refuse to enforce it?

My argument against Bill Clinton isn't about him being a Democrat. He committed a crime, a crime that would have sent another man to prison. And he wasn't even removed from office for it. And some people seem okay with that. Do you believe it's okay for people to commit crimes as long as they're Democrats? I wouldn't think so. So the question then becomes, why was it okay for Bill Clinton?
Click to expand...
I don't care about this Bill Clinton stuff. Frankly, that was on you guys old enough to make a difference. I was watching X-Men cartoons and being a little shithead. Not my issue.

I know the hate is real for the Clintons. But that has nothing to do with what Trump is accused of doing.
 
#15,420
#15,420
RockyTop85 said:
They made the choice to give it to the senate knowing that it would involve popular support in the removal process. It wasn’t an unintended consequence. It was structured that way.

Meeting the statutory definition of a crime isn’t in there either, but that’s your criteria. The vagueness of high crimes and misdemeanors was also a nod to the necessity for public support as was the requirement of a supermajority.
Click to expand...
If perjury and obstruction aren't crimes, why do we prosecute them as such? Why should being President or any other political figure protect you from prosecution for those crimes? Does the law apply to everyone or just to certain ones? I guess I see things more black and white than you and others. He committed crimes. Being President should not have protected him from facing those consequences, but it most assuredly did. He got off because some politicians put party before the law.

If you want to talk about old political papers, reread Washington's farewell address. Political parties are tearing this country apart by putting themselves above the country and the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#15,421
#15,421
zeppelin128 said:
I don't care about this Bill Clinton stuff. Frankly, that was on you guys old enough to make a difference. I was watching X-Men cartoons and being a little shithead. Not my issue.

I know the hate is real for the Clintons. But that has nothing to do with what Trump is accused of doing.
Click to expand...
If you don't care, why do you keep responding? You can choose not to take part in the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01 and tennvols77
#15,425
#15,425
I'm posting this just to underscore what a dishonest person that Donald Trump is. This fundamental dishonesty really becomes apparent whenever he is under scrutiny for unethical conduct.

1) In the summary (and it's not a verbatim transcript) of the July 25th phone call between Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, President Trump describes Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch as being "bad news" and he said that she was "going to go through some things."

2) Yesterday Trump said, "I really don't know her," to a pool of reporters at the White House.

You knew her well enough on July 25th to call her "bad news", Donald.

Also, Trump has claimed that he didn't know the two associates of Rudy Giuliani, who were arrested on campaign finance charges last month. However, there is a picture of both Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman standing in a group photo next to Donald Trump, Mike Pence and Rudy Giuliani. There is also a separate picture of just Lev Parnas and Donald Trump together. Parnas has his thumb up and they are both grinning ear to ear. They sure look like good buddies to me. Whenever Trump is in trouble, he never hesitates to resort to lying. He will always say that he doesn't know a person caught up in his corruption... even when there is photo evidence to the contrary. At the heart of everything surrounding Trump, he is best defined by his dishonesty. Donald Trump is a liar. Plain and simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: samanderson and zeppelin128
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top