What is Worthy of Impeachment?

Jump to Last Post 1-2 of 2 discussions (66 posts)
  1. crankalicious profile image90
    crankaliciousposted 4 months ago

    It's pretty clear that many conservatives do not believe that President Trump's latest actions are worthy of impeachment.

    So this begs the question, what is worthy of impeachment?

    Let's remember some things from history:

    1. President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice.
    2. Andrew Johnson was impeached for the Tenure of Office Act - or basically replacing somebody who it was Congress's job to replace.
    3. Although Nixon was not impeached, it was assumed he would have been had he not resigned. He would have likely been impeached for using his personal lawyer to pay hush money to the Watergate burglars.

    Given that the above things are grounds for impeachment, what would President Trump have to do that would garner your support to have him impeached?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Crank, good luck getting a Trump supporter to weigh in on this subject. However, the old saying goes, "Fools rush in....." has a lot of truth in it.

      1. crankalicious profile image90
        crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Randy, all I can deduce from the responses here and lack thereof is that Trump supporters wouldn't support impeachment under any circumstance. Oh wait, I bet if he suddenly switched parties, that would do it.

    2. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      I will answer your first question Crankalicious, but will leave your last question for the partisans.

      High crimes and misdemeanors, as determined by Congress. That is what is worthy of impeachment. Not a like or dislike of a president or their direction or method of leading.

      GA

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Well, many from the right believe it's simply because we hate Trump, Gus. Are you in that group, or you one of the free thinkers? tongue

        1. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Shouldn't others be the one to answer that? Or should I be the one to tell you how many languages I speak, how smart I am and how high my IQ is?

          GA

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            I think I can guess.....

        2. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Randy, it is so apparent GA is a free thinker, he never could be accused of joining in groupthink. Not sure there are actually many here that don't ascribe to groupthink?  But GA? Come on.

      2. crankalicious profile image90
        crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        GA,

        What specific act? Throughout history, the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" has been given quite a wide latitude and has been used in a way that does not mean a crime necessarily has to be committed. It can be an abuse of the public trust or simply not adhering to the oath of office.

        1. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Yes. Those.

          GA

          1. crankalicious profile image90
            crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Oh my, GA, you certainly do seem to be dodging the question.

            Lying under oath, does that qualify?
            Having sex with an intern? Does that qualify?
            Using the office for personal political gain? Does that qualify?
            Violating the oath of office? Does that qualify?
            How about threatening a whistleblower?

            The question is - what specific action would cause you to support impeachment? Doesn't have to be this President. Could be any President.

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              I am not dodging Crankalicious, your question is too broad to offer specifics.

              For instance, your closing sentence in a previous comment seemed to offer two reasons:

              " It can be an abuse of the public trust or simply not adhering to the oath of office."

              But how many thousands of specific actions could fit into those two classifications?

              Then, look at the possibilities for your lying under oath question. Would lying about what you thought of some cabinet member be as good a reason for impeachment as lying about whether you ordered an investigation of that cabinet member? They are both cases of lying under oath. Would you vote impeachment for the first lie?

              The raw answer to all of your offered questions could be, "Yes, of course," but it is entirely possible there could be instances of those mentioned actions that mitigate a rationale for impeachment.

              My best and most honest answer was my first one; Whatever Congress deems to be a High crime or misdemeanor.

              For instance, I don't think Clinton should have been impeached for lying about having sex with Monica, but if the circumstances were different, such as that sex being coerced by some threat of job loss, or some other detrimental consequence, then I would have supported his impeachment for lying under oath.

              See what I mean?

              GA

            2. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Lying under oath? That depends on what it was concerning. The Clinton case was a GOP witch hunt. It was not anyone's business as to who Clinton was sleeping with .....

              Having sex with an intern does not constitute high crimes or misdemeanors.

              Violating the Oath of office is what Nixon did and what is now why Trump is currently being accused. The impeachment stage is in its investigative inquiry. All the facts surrounding the case need to be gathered and substantiated before anyone can proceed. I don't know that we are there yet, as I want to avoid any partisan witch hunts, regardless of the fact that I do not like Donald Trump very much.

              It is unethical for Trump to seek to gather information on a potential opponent from a foreign power using the power of his office for his personal gain. But ethics is not something for which Trump receives passing marks.

              It rises to an impeachable offense if can be proven that the aid that was authorized by congress to the Ukraine was being withheld as blackmail by Trump to pressure the Ukraine to accede to his request. That, is in itself, is a violation of his oath of office, as far as I am concerned.

              1. crankalicious profile image90
                crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Well, I disagree. Sexual harassment on the job while your President of the United States is a crime. Impeachable? Not sure. Lying about it under oath? Probably.

                1. Credence2 profile image80
                  Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Crankalicious how many times has Trump been accused of sexual harassment prior to his taking office? No one is talking about impeaching him for any of that.

                  From Wikipedia:

                  Of all the allegations made against him, Clinton has only admitted extramarital relationships with Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers, both of which have generally been accepted as consensual. However, some commentators have nonetheless characterized Clinton's affair with Lewinsky, who was at the time a White House intern, as sexual misconduct because of the vast power imbalance between a president and an intern; Lewinsky was 22 at the time and described the relationship as completely consensual.[5] In 2018, Lewinsky herself began to question her long-standing view that her relationship with Clinton had been consensual, characterizing the relationship as a "gross abuse of power" wherein the power differential between the two was so great that "consent might well be rendered moot."[6]

                  Consensual sexual relations does not constitute harassment, but reflect poor judgement from Clinton. The same sort that I register from Donald Trump on a daily basis.

                  But, I say that in itself is not an impeacheable offense. So, I respectfully disagree and stand my ground.

                  1. crankalicious profile image90
                    crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    The difference is that Clinton's sexual harassment occurred in office while Trump's occurred before he was President. Please be realistic about impeachment. You can't impeach somebody for conduct prior to when he was President.

                    Clinton's case is a clear example of abuse of power and sexual harassment. Consensual or not, there's a huge power imbalance there that's not okay.

                    I think us Democrats need to keep our morals and ethics consistent. If we're forgiving Clinton, why not forgive Trump? All these men seem to think it's their god given right to touch whoever they want and sleep with whoever they want.

                    I'm not forgiving nor supporting either.

              2. Ken Burgess profile image91
                Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                But this is not what happened.

                There was an election, and a NEW President.

                Then our President called this new President, congratulated him, and said, hey if you could, look into this Crowdstrike for me and the Biden thing.

                Ukraine was expecting $400 million in US support including weapons, training, and advisers to boost its effort to fight off Russia. It had already been approved.

                When President Zelensky got the call from Trump, that aid had yet to be sent. So its no surprise Zelensky mentioned the assistance to Trump, but its two separate issues... it is a leap to tie one to another, Trump asking about Crowdstrike and Biden to aid which had already been approved... but you know why they are trying hard to make this link?

                Because this IS what Biden did as VP... he DID threaten to withhold funding if the investigation into his son wasn't halted ( Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin) and the person responsible fired.

                Politics as normal in D.C. ... but Trump isn't part of that click, and that's why they desperately want him gone.

                1. crankalicious profile image90
                  crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Ken,

                  What you're saying about Shokin investigating Hunter Biden is apparently made up. That's Shokin's version, but he was fired at the behest of many people. Here's a pretty interesting link that's not particularly favorable to the Bidens that, nonetheless, does not support this fabrication that Biden got a guy fired for investigating his son.

                  https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … ine-shokin

                  Though I will say, this tit-for-tat way the wealthy get their kids jobs for 50k/month is repulsive, though should we be repulsed by politicians or just by rich people in general?

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image91
                    Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    It doesn't add up (and anyone can put anything into an article, it doesn't make it fact or truth).

                    This clip has Biden saying in his own words (midway):

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXAxzddS4o

                    If this were an isolated incident with one country, I guess it could be overlooked.  But there is more, with another country.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj5aiDsilYA

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0VGXy_AJjs

                2. Credence2 profile image80
                  Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  "It rises to an impeachable offense if can be proven that the aid that was authorized by congress to the Ukraine was being withheld as blackmail by Trump to pressure the Ukraine to accede to his request. That, is in itself, is a violation of his oath of office, as far as I am concerned.."


                  That is ok, Ken we both are agreed that IF Trump is proven guilty of this then it rises to an impeachable offense.

                  But it has to smack of poor judgement for the President to use the authority of his office to gather dirt on a possible opponent from a foreign government.  Whether that in itself rises to an impeachable offense is another matter for discussion and determination.

                  1. crankalicious profile image90
                    crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    If I was a Trump supporter, I'd be livid at the stupidity of this conversation. Being President is not like being CEO of your own company. You just can't do anything you want.

                    There were a lot of ways for Trump to investigate Biden if he wanted to - legitimate ways. There were also a lot of ways to get this story out in the open.

                    Really, all he had to do was mention in public that Hunter Biden got paid 50k/month to be on the board of a Ukranian company. That, by itself, raises questions.

                    Instead, he put himself in hot water.

                3. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  "Because this IS what Biden did as VP... he DID threaten to withhold funding if the investigation into his son wasn't halted ( Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin) and the person responsible fired.

                  How do you know this Ken? I did a semi-brief walk-about and what I found was contrary to your statement.

                  The best I found so far was a May 2019 Bloomberg Timeline article

                  Its points were:

                  The Burisma Holdings investigation focus was for actions in the 2010-2012 timeframe.

                  The investigation was dormant by the start of 2014, but a Feb. 2014 information request from the UK prompted an order to resume the investigation. (the UK had to unfreeze $23 million in Burisima money because the Ukrainian prosecutor's office refused to comply with that request leaving British courts to rule the money had to be unfrozen and returned.

                  It was also a complaint from the UK to the U.S. that may have set the Joe Biden action in motion.

                  Shokin, (the one Biden got fired in 2016), was appointed as prosecutor in 2015 and most statements/sources say he still did not resume the Burisima investigation.

                  Everywhere I looked said Shokin had not resumed the Burisima investigation. Bloomberg even quotes his assistant as saying the investigation was not restarted when Shokin was appointed.

                  Hunter joined Burisima 2 months after the 2014 UK information request. My guess is Burisima grabbed him in anticipation of a renewal of the investigation and was looking for influential U.S. names to help their case.

                  Anyway, take a look at the timeline and see what you think. I didn't see anything that indicated Hunter Biden was under investigation. Now I am of to look for that disappeared $1.8 billion you say he was a part of.

                  Here are some more bits and pieces:

                  NYT article that offers an explanation of why Burisima picked Hunter Biden

                  Some more NYT details on the Bidens and Ukraine

                  A Business Insider compilation of the major details

                  Politico also had a good article on this but I didn't save the link.

                  GA

            3. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Not one of those would qualify without proof...  Facts matter

              If fact emerges your question would be easy to answer. One should not condemn on hearsay or if come... or simply out of disliking the person accused.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                "Not one of those would qualify without proof...  Facts matter"

                *shrug*  That depends on just how desperate you are to remove a president, or (hopefully) gain political points.  When we see a 2 year "investigation" into Trumps supposed collusion with Russia, followed by an impeachment investigation based on hearsay evidence from someone saying that he heard others say an impropriety happened, well, it kind of says something about the necessity for facts.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, it is apparent that many on the left are satisfied to accept unproven allegations that the Dems and their arm of media have been peddling.  However, one must hold onto the fact we have sensible people in this country that will in the end vote on President Trump's job performance.

                  Have you checked out the cash pouring into Trump's campaign fund comparing it to the Dem's lack of cash coming in?  Since this latest impeachment inquiry scandal money is pouring into Trump's coffers, (Bolstered By Impeachment Inquiry, Trump Campaign And RNC Raise $125 Million)Link below.    To add to the Dem's problem Wall Street has stated if Warren runs thier cash will be diverted to Trump. This is just one of the large nail in the Dem's coffin.

                  In the end, facts do count.  In my opinion, the Dem's have unleashed an ugly dog that continually bits them. They can't find a crime and just keep searching for one. This does nothing but makes them look desperate and foolish.  I think they feel if they create enough smoke they will draw votes? But all that smoke is working to choke out any and all that have common sense, just as it did in 2016.

                  https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/wall-st … nated.html

      3. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        That sums it up.

        1. crankalicious profile image90
          crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          What specific action of a President would cause you to support impeachment? What violation of the oath of office would get you there?

          Sex with an intern? Lying under oath? Obstruction of justice? Murder?

          Is there something specific you could see with Trump or any politician that would get you behind impeachment?

    3. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Some people will never support impeachment, no matter how many laws are broken.

      Nixon proved it, and we're seeing it once again with Trump.

      "The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities."

      https://legal-dictionary.thefreediction … sdemeanors

      1. crankalicious profile image90
        crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Laws do not have to be broken. Violating one’s oath of office is also enough.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

          I must ask. What did President Trump do that violated his oath? Just one example will do. And please make it an example that has proof on its side, not smoke or if come.

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Shar, I believe along with many others that Trump pressuring the leader of a foreign government to investigate his 2020 rival while withholding foreign aid fits a violation of his oath.

            If that's not illegal, why did a couple of Trump people hide the call transcript in the most secure computer in the White House?

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

              I will respect your opinion, although at this time I don't agree with it.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                You will....when you discover how corrupt your POTUS really is....

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  So far I am not impressed only sad that so much time and money are being expended trying to undo a presidential election. It would seem he Dem's would work on the next election. At this point, I guess they may need to gear up for Trump's next four years in office. Because they are at this point his biggest ally in winning in 2020.  Just saying

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    You apparently do not care if Trump violated his oath of office, Shar. Not surprising in the least. Just saying...

                2. Ken Burgess profile image91
                  Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Which Joe Biden do you agree with Randy?

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C53QAzYHCOE

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            He spoke of delaying aid payments.  And he spoke of investigating a potential crime.

            IF we assume there was a threat to delay aid if the investigation did not happen, and IF we assume that any investigation discussed was about winning the next election rather than punishing a criminal, then it seems criminal.  I doubt there is a liberal in the country that is not ready, willing and eager to make those assumptions and declare them to be absolutely true beyond a reasonable doubt.  If there are, they certainly aren't on this forum!

            But in any case, there does not have to be a crime to impeach a president.  "High crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to criminal activity in the ordinary sense.  Any excuse will do if you can but get half the house to agree that whatever it is, it shouldn't have happened.  And if 2/3rds of the Senate agree then punishment may be administered.

            Given that, there seems little to no doubt he will be impeached by a Democrat majority in the House, and a trial held in the Senate. 

            Interestingly, the news tonight commented that Democrats are attempting to rush this all through this year: that they don't want it going on during either the primaries or the election next year. It is, once more and just as the "Trump colluded with Russia" attempt, a political game being played in the usual Capital Hill style.  Personally, I expect Democrats to continue their efforts at removal until Trump either reaches the end of his term in office, or dies.  Whereupon whoever is the next President will face the same nonsense.

            But a thought - if the Democrats succeed in their Most Holy Task of eliminating him, could Trump be elected again next fall?

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Only average Americans with a conscience and a respect for the Constitution would like to eliminate a President who breaks the law so easily.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

              I agree with all you have said, and I think I will put my faith in Justice Roberts. I don't feel the Senate will vote to impeach.   The Dem's have become very aware they have nothing but this path to follow, their candidates are too far left. People are sick of all their trumped-up drama, and  Trump's economy keeps rolling along. Hey, and even the border has become very much under control. Plus independents will not want to rock a steady boat...  Unless Trump really gets himself in trouble, he will win in the fall.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                He's already in deep doo doo, Shar. You just cannot admit it...

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Not sure why you think the president is in ny form of trouble. As of yet, the fct is there has been no vote to impeach. I think my sentiment was well laid out in my comment. perhaps you might read it again.

                  "I agree with all you have said, and I think I will put my faith in Justice Roberts. I don't feel the Senate will vote to impeach.   The Dem's have become very aware they have nothing but this path to follow, their candidates are too far left. People are sick of all their trumped-up drama, and  Trump's economy keeps rolling along. Hey, and even the border has become very much under control. Plus independents will not want to rock a steady boat...  Unless Trump really gets himself in trouble, he will win in the fall."

                  I think you are well aware I am a fan of facts, not unproven allegations. One fact that is apparent this morning, Congress has not voted fo impeach the president.  So, not sure of your sentiment that the president is in "deep doo-doo?  You predicted he was going down with the Mueller report? One would think you could see the repetitious game the Dem's play.

              2. crankalicious profile image90
                crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Justice Roberts will have nothing to do with this.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Not sure how you came to your opinion? I see your link is an article from NYT. Sorry to say I don't respect the outlet. I have offered several links to where I have enjoyed doing research on the subject.

                  https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoy … 6d83812d36

                  "Topline: As House Democrats begin their impeachment inquiry into President Trump and whether he violated his oath of office⁠—as alleged in an explosive whistleblower report⁠—here’s what might happen next in the process.

                  The first step in impeachment was completed September 24, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry.
                  The second step will be for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate Trump. Pelosi said that six committees already investigating Trump will fall under the “umbrella” of the impeachment inquiry.
                  Third, the House judiciary committee finishes its investigation and decides whether to draft articles of impeachment. If the committee finds no wrongdoing, the impeachment inquiry would stop and Trump would remain in office.
                  The fourth step is for the entire House to vote on the articles. If the House votes yes on any of the articles by a simple majority, Trump would then officially be impeached.
                  But the decision to remove Trump from office lies with the Senate, which can conduct a trial. The fifth step is for Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell to decide whether to put Trump on trial or hold a vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment.
                  If a trial does occur⁠—the sixth step⁠—Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts would preside. After deliberating in private, the Senate would hold a public vote. A two-thirds majority is required to convict Trump and oust him from office."

                  "Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution designates the chief justice to preside during presidential impeachment trials in the Senate; this has occurred twice. ... The chief justice presides over the Judicial Conference and, in that capacity, appoints the director and deputy director of the Administrative Office".


                  "(CNN)Two decades ago, Chief Justice William Rehnquist captured unprecedented attention as he presided over the Senate trial of a president, a role that would fall to Chief Justice John Roberts if the US House were to impeach President Donald Trump and a Senate trial were launched."

                  https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/ … 0902110009

                  If President Donald Trump is impeached, it will ultimately be senators who decide whether or not to remove him from office.

                  "But there’s one other key figure in an impeachment trial: Chief Justice John Roberts, who has presided over the most right-wing Supreme Court in decades — and who would preside over the trial in the Senate."

                  https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/ … ent-trial/

    4. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Andrew Johnson was a different era, so I don't see that as applicable to today.

      Nixon resigned, and perhaps that is what the Dems are really hoping for, to keep this nonsense up in hopes that Trump does so, but that's not likely.

      So lets consider Clinton's situation.  What really occurred?

      Did Clinton get thrown out of office?
      No.

      Did the Republicans benefit from the effort?
      No.

      The Republicans got slammed by America with wave of losses in Congress.

      Infact, one could argue that Republicans never really recovered from that effort until after the Democrats rammed through the ACA.  At which time there was a wave of elections that went for the Republicans in 2010, 2014, and culminating in 2016 with Trump.

      The dissolution between the American people and their governing bodies is still alive and well. 

      Despite accusations of being racists or sexists... the Tea Party, the Americans who voted for Trump, are not.  They are people fed up with a lying, corrupt, disconnected Congress, and a government in general that is not serving their best interests.

      Impeaching Trump will do nothing to swing those voters over to the Democrats, it will do nothing to deter the 60+ million Americans who voted for him last election... Impeaching Trump will only confirm the worst fears those 60+ million people had, that their government was totally corrupt and out of control, and that the media and alphabet agencies are part of a 'ruling elite' determined to keep the masses down.

      Attempting to impeach Trump for investigating the corruption of the former VP, who through use of his son, has made 1.8 Billion disappear in the Ukraine and recently made a 1.5 Billion deal with China, is not a good look.

      The Democrats in Congress and the MSM may think they are pulling the wool over the eyes of most Americans, but I doubt it, and I think this will have major blowback on them.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        They are pulling the wool OFF of many American's eyes, Ken. You too will finally be able to see the truth you have been denying so long.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Please do elaborate on what truths I have been denying.

      2. crankalicious profile image90
        crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Ken,

        I think your logic here is pretty sound and I agree with it, though I probably wouldn't characterize what Trump has done as nonsense.

        However, you have made me see how some people view this situation, which is that they view Biden and anybody like him who has been in politics his whole life, as corrupt. And when you discover that his son somehow gets paid 50k/month (who gets paid 50k/month to do anything and how exactly does that happen) you should be suspicious. One can certainly assume that, through his dad's connections, he got that job.

        You're really avoiding the question though - what would it take? What is worthy of impeachment?

        The thing about what Trump has done is that he asked for a favor. If he was truly interested in investigating corruption, he would have done it the second he got into office. He could have started investigating Hillary then. He could have started investigating Biden then. But he didn't. He waited until he was on the phone with the Ukranian President, after Biden announced his candidacy, and he asked for a favor - a person favor - and he held Ukranian aid (previously approved by Congress) over his head. And his goal was to damage a political rival (I think you'd be concerned about the massive stupidity in all this, but this seems to be Trump's MO - violate the law, constitution instead of just creating a bipartisan and or independent group to investigate this - or hell, one of his media cronies)

        I think your argument is that all politicians do stuff like this and Biden's is just one example, so we're holding Trump to a standard we're not holding anyone else to. That makes sense.

        Remember, I don't want Biden as the nominee. I support Warren. I want change, not the same old, same old. I want somebody who's going to work for average people and not for corporations and special interests (defined as those who pay lots of money).

        But what Trump did, no President should ever be able to do - use the office as a way to get their personal political favors done.

        I would love to read an expose on Biden and how the hell his son got that job and what his employer expected from him, but that is a deflection from all of this so-called "nonsense". Using the office for personal political gain, for getting favors; etc. is a violation of the oath of office. Attempting to extort a favor from a foreign nation in exchange for aid you're not allowed to withhold in the first place, is a violation of the oath of office and the Constitution. Potentially asking a foreign nation to interfere in our elections is a violation of the oath of office and probably a crime.

        I think your argument might be that this is just business as usual in Washington - scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

        Open up an independent investigation into Biden. Open one up into Hillary Clinton.

        Will impeachment backfire on the Democrats? It very well might.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          What is worthy of impeachment?

          I think the bar is very low, I think its all political BS, so it doesn't really matter, so I was interested more in what would likely result from this effort.

          But for an example, I think what Clinton did with her Server, using it to hold Classified communications easily hacked by every foreign government that was interested in doing so, and then erasing 32,000 emails when under investigation and destroying those hard-drives is a far bigger 'crime' than anything Bill Clinton or Donald Trump was/is getting Impeached for.



          Stop right there, he could not investigate before because the government in charge of Ukraine was supportive of Clinton and Biden, and was hostile to Trump.

          This was a NEW President, a NEW government in Ukraine, this was the first chance Trump had to address the matter, one President talking to another... this is no different than me asking a favor of a neighbor, there is no big payoff they are going to get for helping out, but it is a good will gesture, this is just how the world works. 

          This is far less damning than Biden's son being involved in making 1.8 billion dollars disappear or Biden threatening to hold back 1 billion in aid to Ukraine if they don't fire the investigator into Hunter Biden... now THAT is the real crime. 

          Remember when Obama was talking to that Russian official and it got caught on a hot mike him saying 'we can work with you after the election and do whatever you want then" (paraphrasing) ... hmmmm.

          Different standards?



          Well no, my argument is that Biden really did commit a crime, really did threaten to withhold a billion dollars in aid, and his son really did help make 1.8 billion disappear. 

          That is corruption, that is what these lifer D.C. politicians are totally corrupt, and they are covering each other's behind. 

          That is why there is this insanity to get Trump out, they can't bribe him with money, he is a billionaire, he despises them (if you know his history and what Congress did to his dad, you would know his motivations)... and he is exposing the corruption of Biden, of Clinton, of Comey, of everyone that has been in D.C. for 25, 35, 45 years making themselves millionaires at the expense of the American people.



          Don't hold your breath, the DNC will never allow it.

          1. crankalicious profile image90
            crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            I hate the DNC.

    5. Onusonus profile image78
      Onusonusposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      If they had actual evidence of wrongdoing.

    6. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Two of the above-mentioned presidents made every attempt to lie there way out of their given problems. President Trump broke precedent and released a private phone call with a world leader. He had no objection for the House Intelligence Committee to release the Whistleblowers claim. He has been nothing but transparent with the media about this newest problem. (I might add this problem is one in a long list of accusations he has had to deal with in his time in office).

      What would garner my support to impeach the president ---  Is this incident worthy of impeachment?  At this point In my opinion no.  It is worthy of an investigation, yes. If factual evidence is discovered that the president committed a crime it would then be worthy of an impeachment trial before Chief Justice Roberts. I would certainly trust Chief Justice Roberts to make a decision if Trump committed an impeachable crime

      President Trump was duly elected by the people. Yes, it's very obvious some strongly dislike him, and do not agree with his agenda or way of governs. Not to mention his appearance...However, these reasons do not support a reason to impeachment a sitting president.

      1. crankalicious profile image90
        crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        The Supreme Court does not play a role in impeachment. Here's a helpful link to understand how the impeachment process works:

        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/p … ained.html

  2. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 4 months ago

    And we find out both Pompeo and Barr are involved in the attempt to legitimize Trump's presidency. Pompeo was listening in on the phone call but seemed to forget this fact when interviewed. While Barr has been globetrotting trying to disprove the Mueller Report.

    Strangely enough, Mueller's investigation into Manafort's activity in the Ukraine was suddenly stopped because of possibly threats by Trump's team because of the threat of holding back already approved Javelins. They needed these weapons so much they apparently acceded to Trumps request.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Randy, Are you surprised the Sec of state would sit in on a phone call or are you upset he would not discuss it with media? I am sure you are aware of executive privilege, classified information?   Not sure why you feel he has done something wrong by not leaking  a private conversation the president was having with a foreign leader? I watched the video on Youtube, all he said was he had not seen the whistleblowers claim. He made no mention of being or not being present for the phone call in question, and he was not actually asked that question. 

      In regards to AG Barr you mut be aware he has been knee-deep in a couple of investigations that spilled over from the 2016 election. One.being how the Mueller investigation was initiated. It is not a secret that he has been investigating the matter for many months. It is no surprise he needs to speak to citizens of foreign countries to obtain information, due to many of the main players are from other countries.

      Martha Raddatz   enter video  at 9:00
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVH3tBDPcUw

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)