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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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. 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."
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.
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.
I don't think that it the same, so in this one instance we agree to disagree.
I don't make a determination of harassment in the face of a consensual relationships when both parties are of legal age.
So in regards to Bill Clinton: bad judgement, yes, impeachable offense, no.
Does Clinton's adultery rise to the level of an impeacheable offense? I doubt it, because if it did many members of Congress would be guilty. I would not want to be reduced to the level of moralizing bringing in hypocritical and phony ethical outrage that is purely partisan in nature.
A consensual relationship with a subordinate is usual grounds for dismissal at most jobs unless the relationship is revealed to a third party. So I think we should hold the POTUS to a similar standard. There's just a huge power discrepancy there.
Was the act itself grounds for impeachment? I think you're right in that applying that standard would leave many a politician out of a job, but I think it's a moral standard to hold. I think a person who would do what Clinton did in that situation is a scumbag.
Crankalicious, this stuff happens all of the time. What is a consensual relationship? Does it necessarily have to be sexual?
We would have to get everybody if we start running after these kinds of things. I don't expect my leaders to wear halos
I judge the serious of an offense based on whether or not the President violated Constitutional provisions and/or was clearly involved in illegal activity
A. Johnson's impeachment was primarily POLITICAL as he crossed the line with Radical Republicans wanting less lenient terms for Reconstruction in the South after the Civil War.
Nixon was engaged and complicit in illegal wiretapping during 1972 against the McGovern campaign. He committed a crime and lied about it and covered it up, it had nothing to do with whom he was sleeping with.
this moral standard smacks of the days of the Moral Majority who was so concerned about who slept with who, while like a smorgasbord, picked and choose what Christian ethics they would adhere to and which one they ignore. I don't need to be concerned about the private life of people as that asks for unreasonable standards. But your job requires that you adhere to your Oath of Office and conduct your business solely for the public interest and not personal gain. As a former Contracting professional, that was the standard that I was to adhere to, not my relationships with subordinates. I would have trouble only if it can be proven that undue preferential treatment was given this person of interest by me relative to the rest of the staff.
I have gone so far to say, I will not condemn Trump until this debacle with the aid to Ukraine being tied to their government providing Trump dirt on Biden is resolved one way or the other. At best, all of this reflects poor judgement with Trump being well aware of how he dodged the bullet in the Russian collusion case. To even give the appearance that he has involved himself again under similar circumstances is at the height of stupidity.
IF Trump did employ a shakedown racket with the Ukraine President, then he is interfering in the Congressional Appropriation obligation by withholding the funding not for legitimate national security reasons but for personal gain and advantage. That is an abuse of the office and an abuse of his oath.
I consider that much more substantial then just sleeping with interns that consent to the relationship without duress or intimidation. While unethical in my opinion, it does not rise to an impeachment offense
No executive at any large corporation or institution survives for long with the way Clinton behaved.
That said, even though I voted against Clinton and was a solid Republican back then, I thought what he did was worthy of censure but not impeachment.
Republicans overreached, and they paid for it.
What if Monica facilitated* the course of events. Would that still make it harassment because Clinton was in a position of power?
I don't think so, but I am wondering if you do?
*my memory is foggy on this, but I think I recall that Monica had a small case of hero-worship and made herself available to be around him as often as she could. I think there were photos that indicated such.
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.
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?
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):
If this were an isolated incident with one country, I guess it could be overlooked. But there is more, with another country.
Did you watch that whole video?
I do appreciate the solid link, but I think the Vox link is also solid.
And we're not really that far off on what we think, but you're making a leap for which there is no proof.
It is true that Biden, acting on the behalf of others (not just on his own), pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was considered corrupt.
What is not true is that Shokin was investigating his son. Per the video: "there's no evidence that Joe Biden acted differently because of his son's position."
Also from the video: "there was widespread support that Shokin was an obstacle to the investigation of corruption and had to go."
So do you believe the whole video or just the part that supports your position?
I do appreciate the situation we're all in. A lot of what we say and who we support isn't based so much in what is absolutely true or proven, but in what we want to believe is true.
No leaps... if you take what is written by a Vox writer, or someone who is no-one that says they were investigating the matter for years as truth... then that is a leap, because they have no facts, just words.
What do we know.
What Biden himself said.. he got the guy fired.
That the guy he got fired was investigating his son's company and the 1.8 billion that company made disappear.
These are facts because we have them saying them, or because we have documentation of it. So this is not hearsay or opinion.
Then, if you watch the other links. We have another 1.5 billion being moved around between China, Hunter, etc.
Now we have two countries, both involving more than a billion dollars.
And we have Biden threatening to withhold 1 billion in funds if a prosecutor general does not get fired.
You can try to smooth it over... but this is D.C. political corruption, this is Clinton, Biden, and the whole crew using their power and position to rake in the dough. This is why Americans are fed up... and are not interested in hearing about what crimes Congress feels Trump has done... Americans know the real criminals are those in Congress.
There's no evidence that I've seen that the prosecutor was investigating Hunter Biden. None.
This is not a fact: That the guy he got fired was investigating his son's company and the 1.8 billion that company made disappear.
And Biden was acting on behalf of a lot of other people. Biden wasn't remotely the only one calling for this guy to go, not because Shokin was an honorable dude, but because everyone was saying he was corrupt.
Did you watch the whole video? Because you are taking the part of it that you agree with and ignoring the rest.
And you're basically saying that anything anybody writes in any article is not a fact. What you're saying is that all information, be it newspapers, internet articles, or elsewhere, is false. That we have an anarchy of information. Every history book I've ever read would be rendered worthless.
What I would agree with, as far as the internet is concerned, is that we've entered an age where we cannot really trust much of what we read because we don't have the sources.
"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.
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.
But having self control and looking at things from the long view is something that he lacks and another reason why he does not have the temperament for the job.
It is like you say, this inquiry could have been handled in any of ways without the "hot water".
This is Trump, that is how he talks.
And the effort to impeach is for the same reason they made up a dosiere and had him investigated, and have been trying to impeach him since day one.
A cabal, an entire group of politicians and officials that have been taking millions via non profit donations, and uranium sales, and business investments, and board positions for their kids... For decades... Is slowly but surely being exposed, all because one man ran for President, and won.
I would rather have that pit of vipers destroyed, and Trump is the wrecking ball that is making it happen.
Sometimes what the world needs is not a hero, it needs a monster. A hero follows rules and does the right thing, even as the villian breaks all the rules or uses them against the hero.
Trump is the monster, the wrecking ball, and he is exposing quite a bit... The country will survive him, and most likely the corruption will continue... But at least he exposed Clinton, and Biden, and half a dozen bad eggs in the FBI, and who knows how many more will fall before he is done.
And if ultimately the choice is between Warren and Trump in 2020 that will be a good thing. And that will be something we would have never seen, if there had been no Trump in 2016.
"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.
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.
"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.
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
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?
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
Laws do not have to be broken. Violating one’s oath of office is also enough.
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.
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?
I will respect your opinion, although at this time I don't agree with it.
You will....when you discover how corrupt your POTUS really is....
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
Which Joe Biden do you agree with Randy?
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?
Only average Americans with a conscience and a respect for the Constitution would like to eliminate a President who breaks the law so easily.
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.
He's already in deep doo doo, Shar. You just cannot admit it...
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.
Justice Roberts will have nothing to do with 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/
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?
Did the Republicans benefit from the effort?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
by Sharlee 4 weeks ago
"Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley argued Friday it is Congress' obligation to launch an impeachment inquiry against President Biden after he "clearly lied" to Americans about his involvement in his son Hunter's business deals. The GWU law professor told "The Faulkner...
by J Conn 4 years ago
Can you imagine how things might look if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, and, two years later ?• Five of her campaign advisers had been convicted of crimes — one of them implicating her — and a sixth indicted.• A prosecutor documented numerous instances in which Clinton had interfered with...
by Cassie Smith 9 years ago
Should a president be impeached for lying?Barack Obama lied to get his (un)Affordable Health Care Act passed. Why is no one in uproar over this? If this was Bush the dummycrats and (un)liberals would be asking for his head.
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Maybe. The 17th Century term High Crimes and Misdemeanors may not mean what you think it might be after seeing President Clinton impeached, but not convicted. A common interpretation is as follows:The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar...
by Marc Lee 6 years ago
Do you think Trump will survive 2017 without getting impeached?
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
Okay, Trump supporters, this report from Buzzfeed, if true, would appear to be the end of the Trump presidency.Buzzfeed is reporting that Donald Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow Tower Trump project and wanted to go to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin personally to...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This 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.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We 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 Pixels||We 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.|