The Impeachment Thread

[zeppelin128]

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.

But, muh Biden!

 

[BowlBrother85]

But, muh Biden!

It does not matter how many times he is caught lying either. Evangelicals will always say they don't care and defend him for it. Would they do that for a Democrat who lies as much as Trump does? No way, man.

 

[zeppelin128]

It does not matter how many times he is caught lying either. Evangelicals will always say they don't care and defend him for it. Would they do that for a Democrat who lies as much as Trump does? No way, man.

Well, of course not. And they are already starting to attack the future nominee. Good thing Pete doesn't have all this baggage that Biden, Warren, and Sanders are carrying around.

 

[RockyTop85]

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.

1st sentence: they are crimes. I’m not sure
what this is even in response to. I certainly never said those weren’t crimes.

2nd sentence: the law unquestionably does protect the president from being prosecuted. Aside from the OLC opinion (maybe you’ve heard of it? It was a pretty big deal some months ago) there’s an obscure but impactful rule of statutory construction directed at deciding which laws apply to the president. Courts have determined that, so long as his action is taken during the exercise of his article 2 powers, a statute does not apply to the president unless it contains a clear statement of applicability.

This is so the courts cannot usurp the power of the executive branch and serve to second guess decisions made by the executive, unless they’ve effectively been delegated that responsibility by the branch in which the constitution vests oversight power. Also the president needs to have the latitude to make difficult decisions quickly without consulting a team of legal scholars to determine if he will go to jail. And finally, there’s another remedy for all that: impeachment.

3rd sentence: this is just pithy moralizing and doesn’t really do anything to support the argument. Maybe you’re confusing my argument with someone else’s?

Rest of paragraph 1: If you saw things as black and white you would have called for Trump’s impeachment after the Mueller report. There’s no way to believe what you’re saying, “see things as black and white,” and not find that both require the same treatment.

I’m familiar with what Washington said about political parties enabling unprincipled men to subvert the power of the government. I’m not sure how it’s applicable to this conversation.

 

[Weezer]

It does not matter how many times he is caught lying either. Evangelicals will always say they don't care and defend him for it. Would they do that for a Democrat who lies as much as Trump does? No way, man.

I agree Trump is a liar and yet there are people who defend him without question. Of course, the Dems do the same for their liars too. Are you okay with that? Is it okay for one side to defend their liars, but not okay for the other side to engage in the exact same behavior?

 

[Weezer]

1st sentence: they are crimes. I’m not sure
what this is even in response to. I certainly never said those weren’t crimes.

2nd sentence: the law unquestionably does protect the president from being prosecuted. Aside from the OLC opinion (maybe you’ve heard of it? It was a pretty big deal some months ago) there’s an obscure but impactful rule of statutory construction directed at deciding which laws apply to the president. Courts have determined that, so long as his action is taken during the exercise of his article 2 powers, a statute does not apply to the president unless it contains a clear statement of applicability.

This is so the courts cannot usurp the power of the executive branch and serve to second guess decisions made by the executive, unless they’ve effectively been delegated that responsibility by the branch in which the constitution vests oversight power. Also the president needs to have the latitude to make difficult decisions quickly without consulting a team of legal scholars to determine if he will go to jail. And finally, there’s another remedy for all that: impeachment.

3rd sentence: this is just pithy moralizing and doesn’t really do anything to support the argument. Maybe you’re confusing my argument with someone else’s?

Rest of paragraph 1: If you saw things as black and white you would have called for Trump’s impeachment after the Mueller report. There’s no way to believe what you’re saying, “see things as black and white,” and not find that both require the same treatment.

I’m familiar with what Washington said about political parties enabling unprincipled men to subvert the power of the government. I’m not sure how it’s applicable to this conversation.

You're going an awfully long way to carry water for a President who broke the law yet remained in office a couple of decades ago. You're not going to convince me that Congress didn't screw that up. The man committed a crime. I don't care how popular he was.

As far as Trump goes, the Mueller Report was pointless. Sorry, I just don't see it the way you do. No collusion was found. So what do you want me to gather from it? Obstruction? You just posted a full argument on how it's okay if a President obstructs as that was one of Clinton's crimes. And truthfully, I do not put much merit in the Mueller Report because it seemed like overreach by the Dems. I'd feel the exact same if the right had done it to a Dem. When I say black and white, I mean I see right as right and wrong as wrong, no matter who does it. My opinion is not shaded by partisanship.

If you ask me if I think Trump has done wrong, my answer is yes. If you ask me if he's done anything that warrants impeachment, I'd say it's highly probable. But what I think and feel are not hard evidence, and quite frankly, I've yet to see anything I'd consider hard evidence. For all this that you(and others) somehow think I support Trump, I've pleaded that the left run a better candidate to win the 2020 election because, IMO, that is the best chance of truly removing him from office. We were faced with a no win situation in 2016. And though I feel the lesser of two evils won(I've made my opinions on Hillary clear), that doesn't mean I "support" Trump. There was no good choice and someone had to win. The left could fix that in 2020, but so far, it doesn't seem they will.

 

[hUTch2002]

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?

But you’re breaking my heart. There’s 618 pages in this thread. If you think I’ve read every post in it you are nuts. Maybe someone gave a legitimate answer but I highly doubt it. All I’ve seen is that it is called a conspiracy theory.

 

[hUTch2002]

1) Trump steps on himself every day, either on Twitter or some other dumb interview.

2) Trump is an old fart himself. He is fat and out of shape. By no means a picture of fitness.

3) Biden had nothing to do with that, and it has no legs anyway.

4) There is no evidence to support that Joe Biden was guilty of anything improper in the Ukraine. Kurt Volker testified that there was nothing to support Trump's conspiracy theory.

This is all just wishful thinking. I don't care that you have been saying it for a long time. It hasn't suddenly become accurate. You don't want Trump to have to face Joe Biden because he would be much tougher to beat in the general election. Sorry, but Republicans don't get to choose our party nominee.

It’s hilarious how you automatically believe anyone that testifies something with which you agree yet call anyone who testified otherwise a liar, including the Ukrainian President and POTUS.

 

[ajvol01]

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.

The requirements to impeach a president are found in Article II, Section IV of the Constitution. It states that the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That funding was contingent on removing a dick dude from Ukraine that the EU and NATO wanted removed as well.

Not quite the same as "he might beat me next election, investigate him and son to give me political dirt then you get money."

Not sure why you guys can't grasp the difference in this, but partisan stuff I guess.

You're saying that Congress directed the stipulations put on the money, and it wasn't a game-time foreign policy decision made by the POTUS?

Is that your final answer?

 

[Orange_Crush]

It’s hilarious how you automatically believe anyone that testifies something with which you agree yet call anyone who testified otherwise a liar, including the Ukrainian President and POTUS.

This. And they wonder why some of us on here mock them.

 

[hUTch2002]

Completely discredited by the testimony of Kurt Volker.

Since we’re playing that game then all of this impeachment nonsense was blown out of the water by Zelensky saying no quid pro quo. He was on the call and supposedly the one pressured so are you saying he isn’t credible?

 

[Orange_Crush]

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.

There is no damning evidence. There is he said/she said, innuendo, and people who love their party more than the republic, so they post ******** like the above as a facade for overturning an election.

 

[ajvol01]

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.

Bragging about your ignorance?

 

[luthervol]

I agree Trump is a liar and yet there are people who defend him without question. Of course, the Dems do the same for their liars too. Are you okay with that? Is it okay for one side to defend their liars, but not okay for the other side to engage in the exact same behavior?

We should always go after the biggest liars. Everyone lies, not just politicians. Everyone does not lie equally.
None of the other 16 repub. candidates were anywhere near the degree of Trump's level of chronic and habitual lying.

 

[Septic]

It does not matter how many times he is caught lying either. Evangelicals will always say they don't care and defend him for it. Would they do that for a Democrat who lies as much as Trump does? No way, man.

The evangelical bloc sold out their perceived moral authority on human garbage. I can't imagine they'll ever be taken seriously again.

 

[zeppelin128]

Bragging about your ignorance?

No. Just pointing out how this has nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

 

[zeppelin128]

The evangelical bloc sold out their perceived moral authority on human garbage. I can't imagine they'll ever be taken seriously again.

They should never be taken seriously again. Something tells me they will though.

 

[volfanjustin]

We should always go after the biggest liars. Everyone lies, not just politicians. Everyone does not lie equally.
None of the other 16 repub. candidates were anywhere near the degree of Trump's level of chronic and habitual lying.

And you are in love with them because your old hag hil probably beats any of the others and for you libs that's the ultimate goal.

 

[volfanjustin]

But, muh Biden!

damn right muh Biden because he is on freaking tape doing the exact thing you hacks accuse President Trump of.

 

[Septic]

They should never be taken seriously again. Something tells me they will though.

By themselves perhaps, the country (fortunately) is becoming more secular by the year.

 

[zeppelin128]

By themselves perhaps, the country (fortunately) is becoming more secular by the year.

Thank Baphomet.

 

[Stew Cook]

damn right muh Biden because he is on freaking tape doing the exact thing you hacks accuse President Trump of.

It's about time you came around. Both Biden's and Trump's requests were quid pro quo... .

Now, on to the next step. Which one of the two sought to damage a political rival, and resulted in their impeachment?

 

[hog88]

It's about time you came around. Both Biden's and Trump's requests were quid pro quo... .

Now, on to the next step. Which one of the two sought to damage a political rival, and resulted in their impeachment?

What will be neither Alex.

 

[luthervol]

And you are in love with them because your old hag hil probably beats any of the others and for you libs that's the ultimate goal.

Just reiterating the point that you guys knowingly picked and continue to support the most horrendously despicable candidate available. That's your albatross to wear.