Impeachment

So it looks like the House Democrats are going to push forward with Impeachment proceedings. Since it is likely going to die in the Republican Senate will this hurt the Democrats?

Comments

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,690

    @reformed posted:

    So it looks like the House Democrats are going to push forward with Impeachment proceedings. Since it is likely going to die in the Republican Senate will this hurt the Democrats?


    In my view, the message in today's announcement from Speaker Pelosi is that the political fallout of an impeachment inquiry no longer matters. The president has effectively admitted on national television to asking the head of a foreign government to investigate one of his political rivals, AND to holding up-then-releasing foreign aid to that government on a time line that raises the very real possibility that the president withheld the money to pressure the foreign leader to engage in said investigation. So much of that conduct is patently, blatantly wrong and a violation of the president's oath of office; some of it is likely illegal. I think the speaker has decided that in these circumstances, doing the right thing is more important than any consequences of doing the right thing. It took her (and me) a long time to get to where she is today. I applaud her action.

    Donald Trump is a profoundly corrupt, amoral, mendacious, and intemperate president of the United States - likely one of the most corrupt, amoral, mendacious, and intemperate politicians this nation has ever endured. It's time to impeach, to try in the Senate, and then let American voters pass judgment via the 2020 elections on the president and the members of the House and Senate who voted on his conduct in office.

    In my view, whether an impeachment inquiry is a good political move can't be known right now. But whether it's the right thing to do is known: It most definitely is.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,463

    Time out, when did he "effectively admit" that? Perhaps I missed something. What crime has the President committed that warrants impeachment? (provable crime, not some left-wing fantasy crime)

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,102

    Mr. Reformed (a.k.a. Mr. Remain the same),


    The US Senate Republicans are complicit to Mr. Trump's lawlessness as President.


    CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,690

    @reformed posted:

    Time out, when did he "effectively admit" that? Perhaps I missed something. What crime has the President committed that warrants impeachment? (provable crime, not some left-wing fantasy crime)

    Sunday, September 22: President Trump responds to reports that he had asked the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden with the following characterization of his phone call with the Ukrainian leader:

    “The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, with largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place and largely the fact that we don’t want our people like Vice President Biden and his son creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine,”

    I have yet to read an analysis of those words - even from the most ardent supporter of the president's - that didn't interpret them as effectively an admission of asking the Ukrainian president to investigate the Bidens.


    This morning, of course, the White House has released its summary of the Trump-Zalensky phone call, a document that shows definitively that president asked the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden. Here's one line from the transcript:

    "The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me." [NOTE: The ellipsis in that quotation is in the actual transcript. Curious that the transcript is missing content from a sentence that begins "If you could look into to it" and is followed by "It sounds horrible to me."]


    Crimes? Recall that impeachment is not a criminal process; it's a political one. Criminally convictable crimes are not required to impeach. It would be permissible - I say necessary - to impeach a president who seeks foreign investigations into his or her domestic political rivals. If the president was concerned about the legality of the Bidens' conduct, he should have contacted the FBI.

    That said, off the top of my head I can think of campaign finance laws and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,463

    Ok, so he asked for an investigation. I don't see the harm in that. And remember, it wasn't the asking of an investigation that prompted all of this impeachment inquiry nonsense. It was the report that he threatened to withhold aid if it didn't happen. Obviously false. Of course this is essentially what the Democrats did to Trump in 2016 yet I don't hear you screaming about that.


    As for impeachment, these actions are not treason, bribery, nor are they high crimes or misdemeanors. This impeachment push is unfounded, idiotic, and wrong.


    And why would the President have to contact the FBI? He is directing the Attorney General to work with Ukraine on this. That is better than the FBI. It's the Justice Department which the FBI is a part of. Seems to me like Biden just might be getting his due. I understand why Democrats are upset. Seems that their actual crimes keep coming to the surface and the President keeps doing what he does best, fix the country.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,690

    Ok, so he asked for an investigation. I don't see the harm in that.

    The concern that I and many other people have is that there is "harm" inherent in a president's or any other American political office holder's outreach to leaders or political office holders of other nations in search of help against their political rivals. Had Barack Obama sought the French president's help in uncovering political dirt against either John McCain or Mitt Romney, congressional supporters of those candidates - and I hope all Americans - would have protested loudly. Can an American president ask the leader of a foreign nation to get tough on crime? Yes. To crack down on corruption in his her country? Sure. But an American president can't ask that leader to investigate a person who might be a opponent in an upcoming election. At absolute minimum, there's an obvious appearance of conflict of interest there. More broadly, we can't invite/permit foreign governments - "Russia, if you're listening...." to participate in our elections.


    And remember, it wasn't the asking of an investigation that prompted all of this impeachment inquiry nonsense. It was the report that he threatened to withhold aid if it didn't happen. Obviously false.

    Not "obviously false" at all.

    1) The president didn't threaten to withhold the aid in the summary released by the White House on Wednesday, yes. We don't know what other communications the Ukranian president received from the Trump administration.

    2) Then there's the matter of the flow of the conversation reported in the White House's summary:

    • After pleasantries, President Trump says the U.S. does a lot for Ukraine - more than European nations do - that the U.S. has been "very good to Ukraine," but that it has not been "reciprocal" because of the "not good" things that have happened, presumably on Ukraine's end of the relation. It turns out the "not good" things have to do with Mr Trump's political campaigns.
    • President Zelenskyy agrees with President Trump about the lack of European support, and then says his nation is about ready to buy more javelins (an anti-tank missile).
    • Trump IMMEDIATELY then says "I would like you to do us a favor," and the "favor" has nothing to so with national security or the interests of the United States writ large. Instead it is to find out about Crowdstrike, a reference to a conspiracy theory that the Clinton email server might be in Ukraine. His "favor" is for help with his obsession with Hillary Clinton and the 2016 campaign.
    • Zelenskyy promises "[open] and [candid]" investigations from his administration.
    • Trump then IMMEDIATELY raises the "very good" prosecutor who was "unfair[ly]" "shut down," a clear reference to the Biden case. He then draws direct attention to the Biden case by saying "whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great," and asking him to "look into" that case because it "sounds horrible to me." The ONLY concerns Trump raises have to do with his own elections - one past, one upcoming.
    • Another Trump reference to the prosecutor follows.

    What's important to notice is that Trump asks for a "favor" IMMEDIATELY after Zelenskyy raises the forthcoming anti-tank weapon request, and not long after telling Zelenskyy that the U.S. does "a lot" for his nation. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to tie together the hold on the Ukrainian foreign aid money Trump had ordered the week before the call, the "favor" requests that arise in the conversation, and the "we do a lot for you" meme to the future of aid and anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. If you were Zelenskyy and you heard the American president say "do us a favor" IMMEDIATELY after you said your country might soon want to buy more weapons, wouldn't YOU think there might be a connection?


    Of course this is essentially what the Democrats did to Trump in 2016 yet I don't hear you screaming about that.

    It's not crystal clear what you're referring to, but I assume it's the infamous Steele Dossier and the Clinton campaign's payments to him for his work in looking for dirt on Trump. Some important facts:

    1. Fusion GPS, which ultimately hired Christopher Steele, was FIRST hired by the conservative "Washington Free Beacon" in the GOP primary season to dig up dirt on Trump.
    2. Hiring Steele and paying him at the market rate, as the Democrats did, made that case fundamentally different from what's alleged about Trump, either in 2016 or now. As the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee reported in 2018, "Under current federal election law, foreigners are prohibited from making contributions or donations in connection with any campaign in the United States. However, it is not illegal to contract with a foreign person or foreign entity for services, including conducting opposition research on a U.S. campaign, so long as the service was paid for at the market rate. Translation: It wasn't illegal to do what the Democrats did. But Donald Trump was NOT asking to hire Zelenskyy or his government at the market rate.


    As for impeachment, these actions are not treason, bribery, nor are they high crimes or misdemeanors. This impeachment push is unfounded, idiotic, and wrong.

    We disagree. In my view, presidents CANNOT be allowed to invite foreign government assistance in American domestic politics. Trump has now done it twice. Once as a candidate. Once as president. This time he's doing it in the open.


    And why would the President have to contact the FBI? He is directing the Attorney General to work with Ukraine on this. 

    The president would contact the FBI because the FBI is the United States' chief investigative body, and the premier investigative body in the world. It is the body that investigates alleged criminal conduct on the part of American citizens.

    The reason Trump didn't ask the FBI was that he didn't want to risk career people at the Bureau's seeing through his desperate political intentions.

    And if he was "directing the AG to work with Ukraine on this," why does the Justice Department say the president made no such request? If it was so much "better than the FBI" to have the AG + Ukraine, why didn't he follow through?


    Seems to me like Biden just might be getting his due. I understand why Democrats are upset. Seems that their actual crimes keep coming to the surface

    There is ZERO evidence to support your claim. There was NO Biden wrongdoing found by either of TWO Ukrainian prosecutors. Joe Biden was NOT seeking the firing of the Ukranian prosecutor for anything to do with his son's case, which had been closed for some time. He was seeking the prosecutor's firing because he was implementing American government policy. And the US was just one among MANY nations that sought the prosecutor's dismissal. Your claim is false and baseless, the product of partisan politics, not objective truth.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,463

    When did Trump do it as a candidate? Asking Russia to find the emails? Good grief, Democrat liberals wouldn't know a joke if it slapped them in the face. And honestly, you sound like Pencil Neck Adam Schiff. You say it doesn't take a lot of imagination but that is just it....it DOES TAKE IMAGINATION.


    As far as directing the AG, the transcript is all the proof you need of that.


    And let's not forget the democrats, including Obama, DID weaponize the Justice Department against Trump with a trumped up FISA warrant to spy on the Trump Campaign and Transition Team.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,690

    @reformed posted:

    When did Trump do it as a candidate? Asking Russia to find the emails? Good grief, Democrat liberals wouldn't know a joke if it slapped them in the face. And honestly, you sound like Pencil Neck Adam Schiff. You say it doesn't take a lot of imagination but that is just it....it DOES TAKE IMAGINATION.

    According to the Mueller report, Russian hackers launched their efforts to invade the DNC email server ON THE SAME DAY and just hours after candidate Trump asked Russia to find Clinton's emails. Apparently, the Russians didn't "know a joke if it slapped them in the face" either.



    As far as directing the AG, the transcript is all the proof you need of that.

    The transcript reports the president's declaring his intention to direct the AG. The Justice Department says the AG never received a contact from the president on the matter. Are you saying the Justice Department is wrong? Or are you saying it's enough that the president intended to contact the AG, even if he didn't actually do it?



    And let's not forget the democrats, including Obama, DID weaponize the Justice Department against Trump with a trumped up FISA warrant to spy on the Trump Campaign and Transition Team.

    I encourage you to re-visit the process and requirements of the FISA warrant process. When you do, you'll no doubt find that the demands those requirements place on the FBI to receive a first FISA warrant are significant, and that each renewal of a warrant requires a NEW showing of CURRENT need. Your review of the FISA system will also show that the FISA court is wholly independent of, and hence cannot be "weaponized" by, either political party any president. Your claim here is baseless and false, another instance of a declaration rooted in partisan politics, not objective truth. [If you disagree, provide links to objective factual evidence that supports your claim.]

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,463

    Yes, FISA can be weaponized if people falsify information. Which it is proven they did with the Steele Dossier. As far as Russian hacking, which part of the Mueller report was that, one or two? That being said, that's timeline just seems like a coincidence.


    And it is enough that he said he intended to have the AG help. The Democrats are making much more out of this than what is actually there.


    There is nothing there that the so-called whistleblower claimed and that Democrats were up in arms about to begin with.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,463

    Justice Department Review says President was not out of line on his call with Ukranian President. Interesting.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,102

    Ha, ha, Would you believe a squirrel if he tells you a nut is a stone? A monkey reporting, no bananas in a fruit basket? CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,690

    @reformed posted:

    Yes, FISA can be weaponized if people falsify information. Which it is proven they did with the Steele Dossier. 

    I know of no evidence that any information in the Steele Dossier was falsified in the way you're using the word here. Some of its intelligence was not corroborated (though much was) but that's not the same as someone falsifying - i.e. altering - it. What's more, as has been made clear in public media for months, even years, the FBI did NOT rely solely, or even for a majority of the application, on the dossier, AND it was NOT the dossier that started the investigation - it was the activity of George Papadopoulos.



    As far as Russian hacking, which part of the Mueller report was that, one or two?

    The information about the Russian hacking is contained in volume one of the Mueller report. Have you not read enough of or about the report to know that basic fact?



    that's timeline just seems like a coincidence.

    Trump supporters have no option other than to label the timing of the Russian hacking activity as a coincidence. All things considered - say President Putin's publicly stated preference for Trump to have won the 2016 election, and the proven Russian government involvement in the email hacking - the coincidence argument is a tough, tough sell. But when it's all you have....



    And it is enough that he said he intended to have the AG help. The Democrats are making much more out of this than what is actually there.

    There is nothing there that the so-called whistleblower claimed and that Democrats were up in arms about to begin with.

    I can't believe you believe that if you've read the whistleblower's declassified report. Have you read it or reviewed any comprehensive reporting about its contents? It's explosive, credible, corroborated, and damning. I now predict with confidence that the House WILL impeach President Trump, probably with some GOP votes. In the Senate, if McConnell has the integrity to hold the hearing, some but not enough GOP members will vote to convict.

    This is BAD, BAD stuff, far easier to digest than the Mueller stuff (though I hope they vote on an obstruction of justice article of impeachment; the evidence to support one is overwhelming). This is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worse than Bill Clinton's lies to a grand jury.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,463

    HAHAHAHAHA the whistleblower report, which I have read, is an absolute joke. It's nothing.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,690

    @reformed posted:

    HAHAHAHAHA the whistleblower report, which I have read, is an absolute joke. It's nothing.

    Since you've read the whistleblower's report, you know that in his letter, dated August 12, he described from his sources the content of the now-infamous phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy almost perfectly. Every detail he provided about the call - SIX WEEKS BEFORE ITS PUBLIC RELEASE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE - is correct. A coincidence? No. The whistleblower was in a position to know what was happening in the White House, accurately reported what he learned, and as a result must be considered a credible source of information.


    If you read his or her report, you also know that...

    • People in the White House undertook an intentional effort to "lock down" documentation about the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call, including moving said documentation off the server on which such documents normally reside to a server set aside for "codeword" i.e. highest-classified material. They did so, according to the report, to protect "politically sensitive—rather than national security sensitive—information," both in this instance and others, according to the report.
    • White House staffers believed the president had abused his authority in pressing the Ukranian president to investigate the Bidens.
    • The president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, met in Madrid, Spain, with Ukrainian government representatives in the form of a “'direct follow-up' to the President’s call with Mr. Zelenskyy about the 'cases' they had discussed," and also reached out to "a variety of other Zelenskyy advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov."

    In other words...

    • The president pressed a foreign leader for his government's assistance in developing dirt on one of his domestic political rivals so much that others in the White House believed the president abused his authority.
    • White House employees thought the content of the president's call with Zelenskyy so troubling that they secreted it (and documentation related to other presidential calls) on a server the security level of which requires the highest-possible security clearance.
    • And the president's personal attorney - NOT a government employee, and someone who could NOT have represented the country in any official capacity - met with foreign government officials in efforts to secure their assistance in developing dirt on one of the president's domestic political rivals.

    If all that doesn't bother you - if to you it truly is an "absolute joke," and "nothing" - then you are a Trumpster of rare purity, a supporter whose resistance to objective truth the president prays will descend upon all Americans... at least those Americans authorized to investigate his amoral, illegal, dangerous, and unethical conduct.



    Justice Department Review says President was not out of line on his call with Ukranian President. Interesting.

    What's "interesting" is the extremely tertiary review the DOJ gave to the whistleblower's report.... That might be interesting, but it's not surprising. The DOJ is led by an attorney general who reported to the nation a summary of the Mueller report so thoroughly misleading that the Mueller team sent him two letters of protest. In my view, there is NO reason to trust ANYTHING that's within the Bill Barr's reach... which this matter surely is.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,463

    Yeah I read the report. Second hand sources. Hearsay. And no, it doesn't accurately describe the call. He did not pressure the Ukranian President to investigate the Bidens. There is nothing in that call that wasn't on the level. And there is nothing earth shattering in the Whistleblower letter.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,690

    @reformed posted:

    Yeah I read the report. Second hand sources. Hearsay. And no, it doesn't accurately describe the call. He did not pressure the Ukranian President to investigate the Bidens. There is nothing in that call that wasn't on the level. And there is nothing earth shattering in the Whistleblower letter.

    You are a Trumpster of Don's dreams.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,102

    Your illegitimate US President, Donald J. Trump, will be impeached. There is no ifs, ands or buts about this. He cheated his way into the position and conducted himself as one who shouldn't be there. A traitor of his office and duty to protect and serve Americans.

    Trump has to go! To tell the truth, He should have never been there in the first place. Mr. Trump broke the laws and norms of the presidency, repeatedly lied to the American people, pressure the Ukranian President to investigate the Bidens, and debased himself. "Where there is smoke, there's fire". I am sure there are many other phone calls to help further make the case against him.

    God sets up Kings and take them down. "God doesn't like ugly". e.g.

    • Children in cages.
    • Separating children from their parents.
    • Re-directing funds (military and other agencies) to build the wall.
    • Giving the wealthiest Americans big tax cuts and the working class little or nothing.
    • Indifference toward Americans after the death of many from a storm.
    • Name calling and insensitive to "Gold Star" Families.
    • Dismissing cabinet members and staff at a whims.
    • Enriching himself at the taxpayers expenses
    • etc.

    God has heard the cries and have seen the tears of those mistreated by this President and his policies. With 225 U. S. House Members, now in favor of impeachment, Mr. Trump's presidency is done! Trust me, the case will be made that the Senate will go along. Trump needs to resign and spare America the pain. He's not competent, anyway. He is a disappointment and a stain of the American Presidency.

    I said, shortly after Trump took office, the Republicans were Trump's enemies. They will be the one that will bring him down. The resistances are in the White House to ensure the completion Trump's Removal. America, get ready for life after Trump. CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,463
    1. Exactly how is he illegitimate?
    2. He may be impeached but the impeachment itself doesn't remove him from office. The Senate will not remove him.
    3. How is he a traitor exactly? That's a pretty big charge. Also, how has he failed to protect the American people?
    4. What laws did he break? Be specific.
    5. How did he pressure the Ukrainian President to investigate the Bidens? There was no pressure in that transcript.
    6. What child is in a cage? None.
    7. Separation, we have dealt with this, we don't even know they are actually their parents. And remember, those people are breaking the law.
    8. I received a tax cut and I assure you I am not wealthy.
    9. How did he show indifference after a storm? Be specific.
    10. What President has not dismissed staff/cabinet members? That's their prerogative. Those positions are to serve the President and the President alone.

    Why do you think the Senate will go along? How is he a disappointment to anyone other than the liberals? Those who voted for him are quite happy. He has a 43% approval rating which is exactly where Obama was at this point and he got a 2nd term so you should probably find a different angle.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,102

    All of the answers to your questions can be googled. Try it. CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,463

    No they can't since your assertions are not true. You just don't have an answer. Besides, you are the one making some pretty outrageous claims, it is your burden of proof. So put up or shut up.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,102

    My points stand stalked-naked for all to see with a simple google search.

    Reformed, do you have access to internet services or a news channel? Do you live in America, a rural part of it or just love America? Do you have access to the BBC, CNN, ITN, Satellite News, etc. The great preacher Charles Spurgeon, the English Particular Baptist preacher, a.k.a. the "Prince of Preachers", said a preacher to speak to the times, should have the "Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other." Be informed, get in touch with the real world, Mr. Reformed. CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,026

    The great preacher Charles Spurgeon, the English Particular Baptist preacher, a.k.a. the "Prince of Preachers", said a preacher to speak to the times, should have the "Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other." Be informed, get in touch with the real world, Mr. Reformed. CM


    In his time, newspapers were actually reporting news ..... nowadays, the TV news channels you mentioned provide propaganda rather than a somewhat objective journalism with news reports

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,463

    Oh believe me, i am very in tune with the news, it is you who are not.

Sign In or Register to comment.