Jump to content

Time to impeach?


Yes or No?  

86 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Congress of the US begin formal Impeachment proceedings against Pres Trump?

    • Yes
      61
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Putting the screws to someone only matters if they have shame. It is an effort to use their shame. Do you think Mitch Mcconnell has any shame? Our system will be forever corrupted by the precedent of

Impeachment inquiry might be one of the few things Trump has actually earned in his lifetime.

What I first typed just now: That's cool.  I can agree to disagree on whether it's a racist term.  But after researching it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching I think I'm goin

Posted Images

Just now, jzk said:

With all of the "research" you did, you would think you would be able to articulate the specific basis for which you support impeachment.  This is your dream, and you can't even articulate it?  Pathetic.

I, and many others, have articulated it several times.  You have chosen to ignore it.  We have explained our position simply and more in depth, even providing you links to the actual statutes we feel Trump violated.  Every time you type you only further confirm what I and others here have determined, that you at best a troll and at worst a absolute fucking idiot.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Swimsailor said:

I, and many others, have articulated it several times.  You have chosen to ignore it.  We have explained our position simply and more in depth, even providing you links to the actual statutes we feel Trump violated.  Every time you type you only further confirm what I and others here have determined, that you at best a troll and at worst a absolute fucking idiot.

No you didn't, dipshit.  You posted a link to a section of statutes.  That is not "articulating" anything.  

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

No you didn't, dipshit.  You posted a link to a section of statutes.  That is not "articulating" anything.  

Fuck you're an idiot.  Seek help, please.  Whatever your job is, stop doing it until you have a proper evaluation performed to prove you are intelligent enough to not hurt yourself or others.

The link I provided takes you DIRECTLY to the statute...

§ 110.20
Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

Fuck you're an idiot.  Seek help, please.  Whatever your job is, stop doing it until you have a proper evaluation performed to prove you are intelligent enough to not hurt yourself or others.

The link I provided takes you DIRECTLY to the statute...

§ 110.20
Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).

 

That is not articulating anything.  If that was cited on an indictment, it would be thrown out.  

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Impeachment is merely the Congress requesting the senate to conduct a full trial on specified accusations.

Certainly  the  Congress should only ask for such a trial when the accusations are sufficiently serious, if found to be true,  to justify removal .

I am not qualified or sufficiently informed to make the  call about whether Trump has crossed the line where it is time for Congress to impeach. I do know the list is growing and may already have crossed the line. 

I do believe the Congress is overdue with respect to officially considering the current list which includes but is not limited to the following allegations: 

1. Repeatedly raped an underage girl on Epstein’s airplane

2. Various sexual assaults reported / accused by 18 women 

3. Mis-use of Trump Foundation finds

4. He was involved with trump University 

5. $25,000 bribe to Florida AG to stop investigation of TU.

6. Obstruction of Mueller investigation

7.  Conducting secret foreign policy 

8. Improper bribing of Stormy Daniels 

9. Money laundering schemes related to selling Trump properties

10. Leveraging Foreign governments to deal financially with Ashton Kutcher

11. Conspiring to ignore / stifle / obstruct Congressional investigations 

12. Repeatedly and deliberately lying to his “employers” as documented by one newspaper to be in the thousands of incidents. 

13. Hiring unqualified family members for government jobs 

14. Whatever tax avoidance the New York AG Office is investigating

15. Property tax evasion by lying about values at various Trump properties 

16. Allowing anyone involved in any way with the US Government or seeking to do business with the US government to do business in any way shape or form with businesses controlled by Trump. 

17. Playing golf on work days 

18. Lying ( denying truth) about his financial involvement (specifically planning to build a trump Tower in Russia) to deceitfully win voter approval during the 2016 election. 

19. Misappropriation of government funds to build a structure along the US Mexico Border (during his “job interview” he repeatedly promised to build a wall paid for by Mexico) 

20. Various illegal Tax evasion schemes  in which he is an alleged participant 

21. Lying about his net worth to deceive voters and gain favor

22. His confession  about grabbing pussies ( sexual assault)

23. His confession and accusations he acted as a deviant voyeur in dressing rooms of teenager pageants 

24. Bone spurs. Doctors given full access could easily determine whether Trump ever has had bone spurs or he illegally evaded service while other young men died serving our Country 

25. Is the White House being used as a sanctuary for a woman who illegally gained US Citizenship after working illegally as a model while present of a visitor's Visa? 

26. -1000. Easy to fill in for anyone who is truly paying attention

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gouvernail

I was just writing this same post,  mine was titled Trump the poor victim

24. His father rented out the office building (on Hillside ave, queens ,NYC) to the doctor that signed the deferment for favorable lease terms!

26. He cheated on ALL his wives , and even used a hooker ($130,000) while the last one was with child

27. belittled members on the House and senate of those that didn't kiss his ass.

28. Belittled a a 16 old that is trying to save the planet , from the oil companies he supports

29. Belittled menbers of the armed services , Admirals, Generals......... that fought in wars that he was tooooooo coward to go, Commander n Chief what a fucking joke

30. Definitely hates woman and treats them like shit!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So..... this brings up an interesting point.  I think there is some truth to the fact that IF trump gets impeached and convicted, there will be a sizable faction out there in voterland who will be very skeptical of the D's motivations for impeachment.  The Dem's have a poor narrative they are stuck with, because the word "impeachment" was being used by many dems literally the day after the country woke up to the fact that trump won and hillary lost.  

Obviously, we have learned a lot about the cheeto jesus in the last 2.5 years and I think an impeachment is warranted and the evadents is or soon will be there.  But the dems still have to live with the fact that their use of the word "impeachment" starting on 11/9/2016 will hurt them as they attempt to sell this to the American people.  It remains to be seen how that sales pitch will go and how hard they will get punished for it at the polls.  I'm not saying its completely deserved, but the fact is the dems wanted and talked impeachment from day 1 due to sour grapes from losing long before anything concrete came out about any actual high crimes and misdemeanors being committed by shitstain.  

From a political angle, anybody with a memory recalls Republicans in the House threatening the same thing two months before the election, when they assumed Sen Clinton would be POTUS, back in September 2016.    I’ve cited it earlier.   

From an angle of patriotism, impeachment is vital if the alternative is foreign free reign and loss of American control of American elections.    Trump has pointed out Pres Eisenhower destroyed a democracy with fake news first, so it must be ok.   We all know how Iran turned out, a totalitarian theocracy in financial distress.     Republicans must abandon party loyalty and fear this argument.

The risk is also great.    If the Senate determines such behavior is the new normal, and a convenient way to retain power, then the next election will be greatly suspect and the one after even more so.    I hope the evidence is allowed to accumulate, and quite frankly is simple enough that even simple people can feel right and wrong.   Based on what is already known, there can only be one answer.    A YouTube of a couple old guys (I forget their name) on PBS was interesting in both found Trump to be in the wrong.   The debate was one believed Republicans to be redeemable and the other felt it was political overreach for the party as you seem to.   The debate appears to be evolving from “Is Trump a threat to the Republic?” to “Will the democrats debase themselves by touching the soiled underwear, will the Republicans successfully argue their shit doesn’t stink and should be worn with pride?”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, garuda3 said:

Thanks Gouvernail

I was just writing this same post,  mine was titled Trump the poor victim

24. His father rented out the office building (on Hillside ave, queens ,NYC) to the doctor that signed the deferment for favorable lease terms!

26. He cheated on ALL his wives , and even used a hooker ($130,000) while the last one was with child

27. belittled members on the House and senate of those that didn't kiss his ass.

28. Belittled a a 16 old that is trying to save the planet , from the oil companies he supports

29. Belittled menbers of the armed services , Admirals, Generals......... that fought in wars that he was tooooooo coward to go, Commander n Chief what a fucking joke

30. Definitely hates woman and treats them like shit!

Your list certainly describes why you don’t like the guy but it is not a list of accusations which are associated with actual crimes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Your list certainly describes why you don’t like the guy but it is not a list of accusations which are associated with actual crimes. 

Nor do they need to be

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gouvernail said:

Impeachment is merely the Congress requesting the senate to conduct a full trial on specified accusations.

Certainly  the  Congress should only ask for such a trial when the accusations are sufficiently serious, if found to be true,  to justify removal .

I am not qualified or sufficiently informed to make the  call about whether Trump has crossed the line where it is time for Congress to impeach. I do know the list is growing and may already have crossed the line. 

I do believe the Congress is overdue with respect to officially considering the current list which includes but is not limited to the following allegations: 

1. Repeatedly raped an underage girl on Epstein’s airplane

2. Various sexual assaults reported / accused by 18 women 

3. Mis-use of Trump Foundation finds

4. He was involved with trump University 

5. $25,000 bribe to Florida AG to stop investigation of TU.

6. Obstruction of Mueller investigation

7.  Conducting secret foreign policy 

8. Improper bribing of Stormy Daniels 

9. Money laundering schemes related to selling Trump properties

10. Leveraging Foreign governments to deal financially with Ashton Kutcher

11. Conspiring to ignore / stifle / obstruct Congressional investigations 

12. Repeatedly and deliberately lying to his “employers” as documented by one newspaper to be in the thousands of incidents. 

13. Hiring unqualified family members for government jobs 

14. Whatever tax avoidance the New York AG Office is investigating

15. Property tax evasion by lying about values at various Trump properties 

16. Allowing anyone involved in any way with the US Government or seeking to do business with the US government to do business in any way shape or form with businesses controlled by Trump. 

17. Playing golf on work days 

18. Lying ( denying truth) about his financial involvement (specifically planning to build a trump Tower in Russia) to deceitfully win voter approval during the 2016 election. 

19. Misappropriation of government funds to build a structure along the US Mexico Border (during his “job interview” he repeatedly promised to build a wall paid for by Mexico) 

20. Various illegal Tax evasion schemes  in which he is an alleged participant 

21. Lying about his net worth to deceive voters and gain favor

22. His confession  about grabbing pussies ( sexual assault)

23. His confession and accusations he acted as a deviant voyeur in dressing rooms of teenager pageants 

24. Bone spurs. Doctors given full access could easily determine whether Trump ever has had bone spurs or he illegally evaded service while other young men died serving our Country 

25. Is the White House being used as a sanctuary for a woman who illegally gained US Citizenship after working illegally as a model while present of a visitor's Visa? 

26. -1000. Easy to fill in for anyone who is truly paying attention

 

 

I disagree with the scope.    Bone spurs may reflect a youth of privilege and being above such things as mud.   It seems he had insufficient pull to get a cushy gig flying planes on weekends like Pres Bush the lessor.   I understand many men of that era avoided their duty,    I had a very good professor that went to college for just that reason.    The sexual assault thing is murky, old memories and women who willingly traded access  or change their recollections for their own reasons (greed or mushroom love)  make that hard to pursue.   Playing golf instead of working represents Trump at his best and most productive, it should be encouraged has having the same moral affect going to church might have on VP Pence (it keeps him out of trouble for an hour or so).  

Hunter Biden shows how far it is possible to go with connections, without needing to break a law.    If Trump can’t stay on a five lane superhighway but still ends up charging down oncoming traffic, his ability to drive the straight and narrow is not merely bad by common standards of decency, but even by American political standards.    Tax evasion and financial fraud as a citizen should be explored, criminal activity by politicians has traditionally been frowned upon.   The election finance law breaking is worth listing only because there are so many legal ways to abuse election money, but Trump still found an illegal one.   The money laundering is serious, as it may have put Trump in the debt of foreign oligarchs.    

If we provide the Senate with a laundry list they can clog the news with some woman who claims that having her pussy grabbed by Trump was a transformative experience,    They distract us from threats to the Republic.  The House should investigate anything of significance, but only pursue those that go above mundane misbehavior and constitute a threat to the country.    The rest are relevant if the Senate decides to ignore the real threats, but will be easily lost among the international effort to chose the most easily controlled person to be our next President.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been a lot of talk about going after the whole ball of wax on Trump.  But I think it's smart to stick with just the Ukraine phone call.  It's a slam dunk.  And it's possible the Senate will either convict him or convince him he has to resign.

The reason I say it's a slam dunk is because Trump released the phone call memo himself.  That's the equivalent of Trump handing over a smoking gun with only his fingerprints on it - with the dead body on the floor and gunshot residue on Trump's hand.  It's because of that memo that the nation is suddenly so open to an impeachment inquiry.  

Once he's removed from office, whoever wants to charge him with whatever other crimes he's committed, can do so without that bullshit, "you can't charge a sitting president" claim.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jules said:

Once he's removed from office, whoever wants to charge him with whatever other crimes he's committed, can do so without that bullshit, "you can't charge a sitting president" claim.

Which is why he'll be there to the bitter end and then some. The Mueller report was a prosecution road map. I think they should use for the impeachment as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Who were they working for?

Is the boss always completely and totally NOT responsible?

You said "there are no crimes" and I just pointed out that there are many. Gonna keep trying to push that bullshit up stream, or find a new line?

- DSK

Were you ever able to find that post where I said "there are no crimes?"

Or are you just making shit up again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@jzk There are literally thousands of not millions of more honest and qualified people who could serve as POTUS. Why do you choose to support DJT?? 

I am of the opinion he has no business serving in any position of responsibility and would object to putting him in any position where he could abuse trust for personal gain.  You obviously feel quite differently. 

You seem capable of making up your mind based upon your own observations and evaluations. 

Serious question.  I would very much appreciate a couple paragraphs or more in which you make an effort to explain. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

 

@jzk There are literally thousands of not millions of more honest and qualified people who could serve as POTUS. Why do you choose to support DJT?? 

I am of the opinion he has no business serving in any position of responsibility and would object to putting him in any position where he could abuse trust for personal gain.  You obviously feel quite differently. 

You seem capable of making up your mind based upon your own observations and evaluations. 

Serious question.  I would very much appreciate a couple paragraphs or more in which you make an effort to explain. 

Can you find the post in this thread where I express support for Trump?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jzk said:

Can you find the post in this thread where I express support for Trump?

Perhaps our perspective differ about what constitutes support 

Your multiple posts in this thread generally suggest there is no good reason to toss his ass the fuck out of the White House. 

In this society where we elect the candidate with whom we are the least disappointed, your lack of enthusiasm for his removal is the same thing as unconditional love and support. 

 

But... I can re-phrase the question:

Why do you tolerate him?? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

You fall in the “I don’t support Trump but....”

Just like your elk Dog.

It’s beyond tiresome.

No, you are a lying sack of shit.  I stated several times in this thread that I would like to see him go. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gouvernail said:

Perhaps our perspective differ about what constitutes support 

Your multiple posts in this thread generally suggest there is no good reason to toss his ass the fuck out of the White House. 

In this society where we elect the candidate with whom we are the jest disappointed, your lack of enthusiasm for his removal is the same thing as unconditional love and support. 

 

But... I can re-phrase the question:

Why do you tolerate him?? 

 

Which post suggests that there is no good reason to toss him out?  I was just asking if anyone could articulate the actual reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those still supporting Trump have difficulty understanding the "two hats" principle.

All public servants (Trump is a public servant) have to grapple with the concept of them being both a public and private person.

Mixing the two in the pursuit of your paid employment outcomes has long been a sackable offence.

Those that can't understand why this has to be are a shilling short of the full quid or personally morally deficient. 

There is NO other way of running a corruption free country. Full stop.

A president (or anyone else for that matter) has no business mixing personal subject matter (election rivals) with official calls to any other government entities both foreign and local. Trump's breached this from day one of his presidency.

Sack him as anyone else would be sacked. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

Which post suggests that there is no good reason to toss him out?  I was just asking if anyone could articulate the actual reason.

I listed twenty. After reading and  considering  my list, how do you justify non-support of a fair and speedy trial ? 

( that trial for the POTUS is conducted by the Senate ) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gouvernail said:

I listed twenty. After reading and  considering  my list, how do you justify non-support of a fair and speedy trial ? 

( that trial for the POTUS is conducted by the Senate ) 

You are the only one that listed any.  You think he really raped a child on an airplane?  Let's start with that one.  If true, he should be impeached.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

And I just came up with another question for @jzk 

Can you offer comparative “non-support” reasoning for The POTUS and Mayor Pete. How do you justify more non-support for for Pete vs Don ?? 

Trump is wrong on tariffs, wrong on immigration (like Obama), and attacks people rather than issues. 

Pete supports a $15 minimum wage which fucks over poor people.  He wants to cancel student debt, end new oil and gas leases and tax CO2 emissions.  Right there he is disqualified.  I would rather have trump.

Just come up with a reasonable pro-freedom candidate, and I will be happy to be supportive.  Just reasonable.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

No, you are a lying sack of shit.  I stated several times in this thread that I would like to see him go. 

You were speaking out of your ass so I discounted that.  Fact is you have a long history of “I don’t support trump but” and the but is always “I support trump”.

Embrace your true vile self.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

Trump is wrong on tariffs, wrong on immigration (like Obama), and attacks people rather than issues. 

Pete supports a $15 minimum wage which fucks over poor people.  He wants to cancel student debt, end new oil and gas leases and tax CO2 emissions.  Right there he is disqualified.  I would rather have trump.

Just come up with a reasonable pro-freedom candidate, and I will be happy to be supportive.  Just reasonable.  

There was a WWII leader who wanted to set nationalists free.  There was another one who wanted to give opportunity to all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hasher said:

There was a WWII leader who wanted to set nationalists free.  There was another one who wanted to give opportunity to all.

You support Hitler?  I was thinking of someone that supports freedom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mid said:

52 U.S. Code § 30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

You did not put that in the form of an indictment that is ready to file in a criminal case, despite this being an impeachment investigation, so I will dismiss it and not acknowledge the law.  Please make a note of it, and spend more time in futility because no matter what you post I will not acknowledge it.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

You did not put that in the form of an indictment that is ready to file in a criminal case, despite this being an impeachment investigation, so I will dismiss it and not acknowledge the law.  Please make a note of it, and spend more time in futility because no matter what you post I will not acknowledge it.  

Just clearly articulate some basis for impeachment.  Like repeatedly raping a child on an airplane.  That is very specific and would certainly be grounds for impeachment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, jzk said:

This is your fantasy.  And you can't even articulate the law that Trump broke that warrants impeachment?  Pretty pathetic.

 

8 hours ago, jzk said:

This is your play.  Certainly even your pea brain ought to be able to articulate the specific law that you are targeting, or at least just admit you want to impeach because you don't like him.

 

8 hours ago, jzk said:

What specific law regarding each?

 

8 hours ago, jzk said:

What is the law that he broke?  Just asking.  

52 U.S. Code § 30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mid said:

 

 

 

 

52 U.S. Code § 30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

Yeah, that is just a cite to a whole bunch of statutes.  Are you suggesting that Trump solicited money or other thing of value from a foreign leader?  Why don't you just say that?  What was the contribution or other thing of value?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jzk said:

Just clearly articulate some basis for impeachment.  Like repeatedly raping a child on an airplane.  That is very specific and would certainly be grounds for impeachment.  

Assuming that they were to the impeachment stage and not the impeachment investigation stage, which they are not, why would anyone waste time on that for you or the long island sound goobers, when no matter what they post, you are going to either ignore it or change the subject?  Why bother?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Assuming that they were to the impeachment stage and not the impeachment investigation stage, which they are not, why would anyone waste time on that for you or the long island sound goobers, when no matter what they post, you are going to either ignore it or change the subject?  Why bother?  

That is just a lie.  I already said I would support impeachment of any president that repeatedly raped a young girl on an airplane.  So if they post that, I will support it if there is an actual basis in fact for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

Posted for the general information to the great unwashed masses posting here.

Question 1:  Is an investigation into the behavior (or lack there of) of a candidate for the presidency of the United States by the president of a foreign country a "thing of value"?

Question 2:  Is soliciting that investigation from the president of a foreign country a violation of campaign finance law?

Question 3:  When the Mango asked for a "favor", and then asked for an investigation of a candidate for the presidency of the United States by the president of a foreign country is that a giant Whoopsie!?  

Question 4:  Because the Mango hands out such nice tax cuts and rolls back (or attempts to) so many nasty regulations, does he get a pass, anyway?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

jzk:  show me a picture of a red hot air ballon!

Us:  Here's a red balloon

jzk:  That's just a bunch of balloons

Us: It's there in the upper right corner

jzk: show me just one red balloon

Us: ok

jzk: you can't show me a red balloon!

lead_720_405.jpg

2006_Ojiya_balloon_festival_011.jpg

Are you sure that's red?

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

Posted for the general information to the great unwashed masses posting here.

Question 1:  Is an investigation into the behavior (or lack there of) of a candidate for the presidency of the United States by the president of a foreign country a "thing of value"? 

Question 2:  Is soliciting that investigation from the president of a foreign country a violation of campaign finance law?

Question 3:  When the Mango asked for a "favor", and then asked for an investigation of a candidate for the presidency of the United States by the president of a foreign country is that a giant Whoopsie!?  

Question 4:  Because the Mango hands out such nice tax cuts and rolls back (or attempts to) so many nasty regulations, does he get a pass, anyway?

 

I think the Democrats have to try..they're out of time and are running the risk of being assumed complicit or incompetent.  This was they best hand Pelosi was likely to be dealt so she came in over the top.  Good for her.  With RGBs health and Beto demanding gun confiscation, the democrats may not make it to next December.  The leadership needs to suck all the oxygen out of the air and take control.

That being said, you've pointed out the obvious - although Trump appears to have asked Ukraine to investigate, it's not obvious they did or that they found anything.  This just proves that Don Jr and Eric didn't fall far from the tree.  What exactly did Trump 'trade' for the military aid?  "Uh sure Donald, I'll look right into that..." :blink:  Biden isn't even the nominee.  In fact, if you sort of follow the money, you end up with ELIZABETH WARREN being the largest beneficiary of this mess.  So SHE should be investigated?  She might actually BE an evil genius but I doubt she's that skilled.

The other obvious contradiction is that if Trump is a Russian stooge, why would Putin WANT Ukraine to have a bunch of money for US military hardware?    Is Trump a Russian stooge or not?  We spent two years down that rabbit hole already.  Maybe he's just a bad Russian stooge?   Personally, I think  both Russia and Ukraine have figured out how to play to Trump's ego and manipulate him into given them what they each want.

When a president - say Bush - arranges for sale of $20 billion worth of planes to Saudi Arabia just in time for an election, is that politics or are jobs a 'thing of value'.

In truth, Congress should be investigating. This is between the legislative and executive.  They need to have it out.  Like all things Trump, though, he's so scattered that it'll be really hard to "prove" anything because he says so much bullshit, it's impossible to tell what's going on from one minute to the next.  If someone DID manage to organize a suppression campaign, then they get to take the fall.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

 

I think the Democrats have to try..they're out of time and are running the risk of being assumed complicit or incompetent.  This was they best hand Pelosi was likely to be dealt so she came in over the top.  Good for her.  With RGBs health and Beto demanding gun confiscation, the democrats may not make it to next December.  The leadership needs to suck all the oxygen out of the air and take control.

That being said, you've pointed out the obvious - although Trump appears to have asked Ukraine to investigate, it's not obvious they did or that they found anything.  This just proves that Don Jr and Eric didn't fall far from the tree.  What exactly did Trump 'trade' for the military aid?  "Uh sure Donald, I'll look right into that..." :blink:  Biden isn't even the nominee.  In fact, if you sort of follow the money, you end up with ELIZABETH WARREN being the largest beneficiary of this mess.  So SHE should be investigated?  She might actually BE an evil genius but I doubt she's that skilled.

The other obvious contradiction is that if Trump is a Russian stooge, why would Putin WANT Ukraine to have a bunch of money for US military hardware?    Is Trump a Russian stooge or not?  We spent two years down that rabbit hole already.  Maybe he's just a bad Russian stooge?   Personally, I think  both Russia and Ukraine have figured out how to play to Trump's ego and manipulate him into given them what they each want.

When a president - say Bush - arranges for sale of $20 billion worth of planes to Saudi Arabia just in time for an election, is that politics or are jobs a 'thing of value'.

In truth, Congress should be investigating. This is between the legislative and executive.  They need to have it out.  Like all things Trump, though, he's so scattered that it'll be really hard to "prove" anything because he says so much bullshit, it's impossible to tell what's going on from one minute to the next.  If someone DID manage to organize a suppression campaign, then they get to take the fall.

 

A solicitation is all that is needed. 

You don't need to get the blow job to get busted for soliciting a hooker.

You don't need to get a nice ribbon-tied report from the president of the Ukraine to get busted for abusing the office of the US presidency.

The quid pro quo issue is a mangy straw dog being dragged across the trail to distract the reporters and give hope to the faithful.  

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the   face of it (The admitted confessions of involvement) Trump is guilty of trying to gain information about a potential political opponent. That's all there needs to be for further investigation. He's already admitted guilt. Plain, simple, solid, done, signed, sealed, delivered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Just clearly articulate some basis for impeachment.  Like repeatedly raping a child on an airplane.  That is very specific and would certainly be grounds for impeachment.  

Alexander Hamilton had a few words regarding impeachment. He argued that impeachment should not be for the courts to decide, but rather a body of well respected gentlemen who would be fair arbiters, the Senate (those were the days). It's fairly plain in Federalist 65 that an impeachable offense may not necessarily be a breach of some specific law -

"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."

 

Excerpted from https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sean said:

Alexander Hamilton had a few words regarding impeachment. He argued that impeachment should not be for the courts to decide, but rather a body of well respected gentlemen who would be fair arbiters, the Senate (those were the days). It's fairly plain in Federalist 65 that an impeachable offense may not necessarily be a breach of some specific law -

"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."

 

Excerpted from https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

That will be lost on the 2 stooges

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

You are the only one that listed any.  You think he really raped a child on an airplane?  Let's start with that one.  If true, he should be impeached.  

I think he should be impeached (indicted by the Congress) if the Congress finds sufficient evidence to support an indictment ( impeachment.)

if he is impeached, the Senate can hold the fair trial both he and the  accuser deserve. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

He wants to cancel student debt

I am a social liberal and conservative fiscally (for the country, not for myself as I have no critters).    I am NOT for forgiving student debt.   There are consequences to signing on the dotted line.   I don't expect the government to forgive my home loan.   If we as a country decide to reduce military funding to make college more affordable so be it but a commitment is a commitment.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, solosailor said:

I am a social liberal and conservative fiscally (for the country, not for myself as I have no critters).    I am NOT for forgiving student debt.   There are consequences to signing on the dotted line.   I don't expect the government to forgive my home loan.   If we as a country decide to reduce military funding to make college more affordable so be it but a commitment is a commitment.    

That’s why I distrust folks who after, as adults, promising in front of their friends, family, god, and Government to do so, fail to “have and to hold till death”

The jackwit in the White House has blown off two such commitments. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's outrage that the president would ask Zelinski to assist in an ongoing investigation after Zelinski raised the subject of mutual cooperation which is required by treaty.

There's Adam Schiff doing improv in committee chambers.

There's claims a cover up wrt a conversation the transcript of which has been made public.

They are outraged over the use of a secure government computer.

Apparently there's already the 218 votes needed for impeachment before any grounds for impeachment have been established. This absurd circumstance is explained by Al Green, who in a moment of honesty, said Trump needs to be impeached because he might be re-elected.....

 

This thing is a clown show.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

There's outrage that the president would ask Zelinski to assist in an ongoing investigation after Zelinski raised the subject of mutual cooperation which is required by treaty.

There's Adam Schiff doing improv in committee chambers.

There's claims a cover up wrt a conversation the transcript of which has been made public.

They are outraged over the use of a secure government computer.

Apparently there's already the 218 votes needed for impeachment before any grounds for impeachment have been established. This absurd circumstance is explained by Al Green, who in a moment of honesty, said Trump needs to be impeached because he might be re-elected.....

 

This thing is a clown show.

Yeah it’s nothing as serious and thought provoking as the Seth Rich coverup. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Dog said:

Apparently there's already the 218 votes needed for impeachment before any grounds for impeachment have been established

Trump’s entire Presidency to date is grounds for impeachment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jzk said:

The consensus "here" like at PA?  That is a good one.

What law should we hold the President accountable for breaking?

An action by the President doesn't have to be against any law to be impeachable.

But post 118 answers your question.
 

Quote

 

Many are advocating impeachment in response to President Donald Trump's apparent attempt to use withholding of $400 million in aid funds as leverage to pressure Ukraine into investigating possible malfeasance by Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Meanwhile, critics fear that investigation and impeachment could unduly undermine confidentiality of the president's conversations with foreign leaders and his control over foreign policy more generally. Largely overlooked in the debate so far is the fact that, if Trump did indeed try to use the aid funds as leverage, he not only engaged in improper self-dealing but also usurped Congress' power of the purse. That's an important constitutional issue that goes beyond Trump's many personal flaws.

...

If Trump tried to use aid money allocated by Congress to pressure the Ukrainian government into investigating one of his major political rivals, that would be a blatant effort to use federal funds for purposes that were never authorized by Congress. The legislative branch does often give the executive the power to withhold foreign aid money until various conditions are met—such as assisting US foreign policy goals, combating corruption, or promoting development. There is a longstanding debate over how much discretion the Constitution allows Congress to delegate to the president on such matters. But, in this case, Congress never even came close to authorizing the president to use the aid money as leverage to force a foreign government to try to dig up dirt on the president's own political opponents and their family members.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Sounds like you're in the "he has to be impeached because he might be re-elected" camp.

Not only the possibility of re-election; he can do quite a bit of damage in the balance of his current term.

That you still support this President makes me question your patriotism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what’s going on with the Dogs of the world -

“As the psychologist I spoke to put it to me, many Republicans ‘are nearly unrecognizable versions of themselves pre-Trump. At this stage it’s less about defending Trump; they are defending their own defense of Trump.'”

“‘At this point,’ this person went on, ‘condemnation of Trump is condemnation of themselves. They’ve let too much go by to try and assert moral high ground now. Calling out another is one thing; calling out yourself is quite another.'”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/opinion/republicans-trump-impeachment.html

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

So you're in favor of politically motivated impeachment?

You still don't understand basic civics do you?  Impeachment is a POLITICAL process.  As long as Congress has enough votes,  POTUS can be impeached for anything they consider a high crime or misdemeanor.  Quit being so fucking stupid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

You still don't understand basic civics do you?  Impeachment is a POLITICAL process.  As long as Congress has enough votes,  POTUS can be impeached for anything they consider a high crime or misdemeanor.  Quit being so fucking stupid.

You're not following your own conversation.  First you said that he should be impeached because he might be re-elected, and then you say he should be impeached for whatever reason congress might think to be a high crime or misdemeanor.  Do you think that the possibility of being re-elected is a high crime or misdemeanor?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

You still don't understand basic civics do you?  Impeachment is a POLITICAL process.  As long as Congress has enough votes,  POTUS can be impeached for anything they consider a high crime or misdemeanor.  Quit being so fucking stupid.

Is impeaching a president "because he might be re-elected" based on any conceivable interpretation of a high crime or misdemeanor?

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sean said:

Not only the possibility of re-election; he can do quite a bit of damage in the balance of his current term.

That you still support this President makes me question your patriotism. 

That you support impeachment to overturn an election makes me question yours.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

That you support impeachment to overturn an election makes me question yours.

Well that would make the following people unpatriotic:

Everyone that helped write the constitution with impeachment in it.

Everyone involved with impeaching Nixon.

Everyone involved with impeaching Clinton.

Everyone involved with impeaching Andrew Johnson.

If Hillary Clinton had won, I am 99% certain impeachment proceedings would have started pretty much as soon as she took office if not before. Them too?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

That you support impeachment to overturn an election makes me question yours.

Nobody supports impeachment "to overturn an election"

Impeachment is proceeding because there is very strong evidence that the President has committed crimes and is acting contrary to the US Constitution as well as against the interests of the nation

 

7 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

....    ...

If Hillary Clinton had won, I am 99% certain impeachment proceedings would have started pretty much as soon as she took office if not before. Them too?

Well yeah, that's one of the things that makes Trumpublicans convinced that it's a political rat-fuck stunt. It's all they know.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Nobody supports impeachment "to overturn an election"

Impeachment is proceeding because there is very strong evidence that the President has committed crimes and is acting contrary to the US Constitution as well as against the interests of the nation

 

Well yeah, that's one of the things that makes Trumpublicans convinced that it's a political rat-fuck stunt. It's all they know.

- DSK

This is the source of Trump's perpetual whinging butt-hurtness. He thinks everyone is just like him, so if things don't go his way he must be getting screwed by amoral criminal scheming liars because that is exactly what he would do to them.

See Russia and Ukraine, he probably thinks the Democrats are running around all over the world lining up countries to help them, so why shouldn't he do it too and why are they complaining about it :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dog said:

Is impeaching a president "because he might be re-elected" based on any conceivable interpretation of a high crime or misdemeanor?

Consider impeachment a stopgap from allowing a criminal to continue on as president. 

Trump has effectively admitted to pressuring the leader of a fledgling democracy to dig up dirt on a political opponent in exchange for financial and military aid.  Trump's release of the phone call memo is his admission of having committed a high crime as President of the United States.

If enough US voters are clueless of this fact, if Russia can effectively hack the next election, if gerrymandering can deny the will of the people, if enough voters can be influenced by election ads - Trump could be re-elected.  If impeachment prevents that, then justice is served.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Nobody supports impeachment "to overturn an election"

Impeachment is proceeding because there is very strong evidence that the President has committed crimes and is acting contrary to the US Constitution as well as against the interests of the nation

 

Well yeah, that's one of the things that makes Trumpublicans convinced that it's a political rat-fuck stunt. It's all they know.

- DSK

Evidently some do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Can you provide a cite of anyone here supporting impeachment of the Pride of the GOP to overturn and election or prevent reelection?  

Sean on the justification for impeachment.

Not only the possibility of re-election; he can do quite a bit of damage in the balance of his current term”.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Sean on the justification for impeachment.

Not only the possibility of re-election; he can do quite a bit of damage in the balance of his current term”.

 

If you had gone with Jules, you would not have had to ignore the second portion of the part you quoted in order to reach the conclusion you wanted.  

And the "impeaching to overturn an election" part, got a cite for that?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

This is the source of Trump's perpetual whinging butt-hurtness. He thinks everyone is just like him, so if things don't go his way he must be getting screwed by amoral criminal scheming liars because that is exactly what he would do to them.

See Russia and Ukraine, he probably thinks the Democrats are running around all over the world lining up countries to help them, so why shouldn't he do it too and why are they complaining about it :rolleyes:

One of the senior House Trumpublicans was on the news last night, saying that the President has done NOTHING! to deserve impeachment, but he certainly would support impeaching "a" President who had possibly committed any crimes and was covering it up; that it was all about trying to install Hillary, it was a political stunt to signal "the radical far left," and lastly that not one single loyal "Republican" (cute, still using the old name for sentimental reasons) would support impeaching President Trump. He also blew a lot of smoke about how serious the responsibility of Congress was, and about our brave boys in uniform, etc etc.

It was a disgusting display of sycophancy IMHO. The Republican Party is gone, replaced by a party of toadies and peasants who do not deserve democracy (nor do they want it).

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites