Are Trump Supporters Blind? Sheep? Misinformed? Misleading?

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (142 posts)
  1. crankalicious profile image94
    crankaliciousposted 13 months ago

    Three things have happened in recent days that should have any logical person convinced that President Trump is a liar and guilty of the thing he's being impeached for:

    1. His lawyers have asserted that the reason for withholding aid to Ukraine had to due with the fact they were responsible for interfering in the 2016 election.

    (This is a conspiracy theory. Debunked by the intelligence community. It's also what Russia wants us to believe. Why would Trump's lawyers be promoting a Russian story? Worse, if Ukraine is responsible for interfering in our elections, why would you trust them to investigate your political rivals? None of that makes any sense, but it's downright frightening that Trump's lawyers would promote that explanation. Scary.)

    2. The Lev Parnas tape, recorded at a small gathering, wherein President Trump advocates for "taking out" Ukraine ambassador Marie Yavonovitch.

    (First, Trump has claimed he doesn't know Lev Parnas, yet he was near enough to him that this tape was recorded. So his claim would appear to be untrue. A lie. Other than that, I don't have any problem with him firing her. He has a right to do that. However, he should have just cut that cord. Instead he instigated a campaign to have her discredited and ruined.)

    3. John Bolton's book wherein he claims that Trump told him directly that they should withhold the aid to Ukraine until they investigated Joe Biden and others.

    (This is at the heart of the whole case. Again, more evidence that this was Trump's intent - to withhold the aid for personal, political gain. Of course, this question is easily solved by having Bolton testify, which one would think everyone would favor if they want to get to the truth.)

    Given these three items, I don't see how it's possible to believe that Trump is innocent. The only defense now is to assert that Trump did not do anything wrong. That none of this amounts to an impeachable offense.

    This is the defense we will see pushed hard - he never did anything wrong in the first place.

    And if that's true, why is Trump's defense pushing any other argument and undermining their own case?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image60
      Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      In answer to your OP. Yes!

      1. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        By necessity, the best argument now is that he did nothing wrong. I think that is the argument that will be pushed the most. It's the only thing that makes sense because you can't argue that what he is accused of was wrong, but he didn't do that.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image60
          Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Bolton has thrown a monkey wrench into the Impeachment proceedings. Will we see more blindness to Trump's criminality, or will the GOP vote to call him? I'm fearful it's the former.

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            I don't think they'll call any witnesses.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image60
              Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              I didn't think so either until the Bolton manuscript came to light. But now, Romney said he'll vote for witnesses and documents and there are other members of the GOP leaning toward it as well.

              In either case, there will be more coming out everyday making the GOP look bad if they stick their heads in the sand protecting the criminal.

              1. MizBejabbers profile image91
                MizBejabbersposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                How many others? Enough to give us hope?

                1. Randy Godwin profile image60
                  Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  I hope so! Bolton's bombshells will continue to cast doubt on the Trump defense.

                  1. crankalicious profile image94
                    crankaliciousposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    I will say, I listened to Alan Dershowitz and found his argument to be persuasive that because no crime was committed and Trump has not been charged with a crime, it's not enough to impeach. I would recommend everyone listen to what he had to say and consider the impact on our nation seriously.

    2. Al Stine profile image97
      Al Stineposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I have concluded that people that tolerate Trump have started to embody the very nature of his conduct. Misinformed and intentionally misleading.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image60
        Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        I agree Al, I've never witnessed such blind loyalty to a con man since Joseph Smith started his own religion. But then, Joseph had followers who liked an abundance of wives. Quite a ploy! tongue

    3. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      In spite of the fact that with 99 percent certainty we all know who is buried in Grant's tomb, the GOP is playing games saying that we now need to open the box to actually see.

      Republicans and conservatives say that we can 't handle the truth.

      1. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Just part of their assault on science and truth.

    4. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      A man is writing a book to make money from.  And he will reportedly make claims that are substantiated nowhere else in his book.

      This is what you present as unassailable truth - proof beyond a reasonable doubt - something that makes it impossible to believe anything else?

      1. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        I presented it as more evidence in a mountain of evidence that supports the assertion that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Unfortunately your "mountain of evidence" is a molehill of opinions, mostly from people who highly dislike Trump and often have reason to.  People he has fired, for instance, or publicly disgraced.

          Of course the whole thing hinges not on wanting Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, but on the reason he wanted it done.  A world of difference; it is well proven that he wanted an investigation (Trump said so himself).  There is zero reason to present "evidence" of the request for an investigation as there is no offense, impeachable or not.

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Unfortunately, that makes zero sense. The issue at hand is whether or not Trump withheld Congressionally-approved aid because he demanded that Ukraine investigate for his personal benefit. That's abuse of power.

          2. Randy Godwin profile image60
            Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            "Trump said so himself)."

            This one of the funniest posts you've ever made, Dan. lol Thanks!

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              I think I'll stop reading the forums now and let that be the last thing I see tonight. big_smile

      2. Randy Godwin profile image60
        Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        He also has reams of contemporary notes and documents which back up his story. But then, he probably made them up because he's one of us "haters."  tongue

    5. Ken Burgess profile image90
      Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I think what we should see, is that it be 'thrown out'.

      If the House had done its job correctly, as was done in past Impeachments, and gone through the process of vetting witnesses and availing the court system, perhaps indeed this would be a non-issue and most Americans would agree with the findings.

      But the House did NOT do that, they did NOTHING that resembled fair, impartial, or thorough investigative work.

      What the House did was completely biased and political.

      And the LACK of evidence and substantiated proof DEMANDS that the Senate denounce their efforts and toss the case out... dismiss it, or whatever terminology and definition works.

      If the House had done its job, correctly, following prior precedence and procedure, this would be a non issue... they would have the evidence they wanted, NOT hearsay, NOT opinion, and the proceedings in the Senate would have been forced to deal with the facts.

      This has been a mockery of what the Impeachment process was meant to be, as bad as what the Republicans did to Clinton over his sexual dalliances had been, at least they followed the letter of the law, the rules and precedence of the past... and despite doing so they paid the price politically.

      It should be infuriating to any Trump hater, that the House pushed this through with nothing to support it other than opinions and hearsay, and then leaving it to the Republican led Senate to decide what be done with it.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image60
        Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        What trial are you watching, Ken. Or are you watching at all. What part of the House inquiry dod you believe was done wrong? Why didn't Barr do his job and appoint a Special prosecutor? We know why. He's protecting the POTUS rather than the country.

      2. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Ken,

        I believe the House wanted to call a number of witnesses and the White House wouldn't allow them to testify. So is it your opinion that the White House is guilty? That they stonewalled? That they had something to hide? That they obstructed justice? Any of those?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image60
          Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          I seriously doubt Ken really knows about the process the House used because the toady Barr refused to appoint a Special Prosecutor.

          As he admitted, he didn't watch much, but he knows what happened anyway. tongue

        2. Ken Burgess profile image90
          Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Yes I have seen this argument typed before.

          But as I understand it, if they had availed themselves of the courts, and challenged the Executive Privilege being used to bar those witnesses, they could have then gained access to those witnesses.

          The Democrats in the House did not care if they were creating a Constitutional crises, they did not care if they were harming the separation of powers, the ability of future Presidents to do their job, past precedence, the law, none of it.... it was a political power play, it was a lashing out against Trump and to hell with the consequences to the Republic or future of America.

          The argument that they didn't have the time to follow proper procedure is not an excuse, if you cannot allow for due procedure and process, vetting of facts and truths, then what you have is not a Republic, what you have is mob rule and malfeasance by the majority party of the House.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image60
            Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Are you aware Trump has never asserted Executive Privilege, Ken? Oh I forgot, you volunterally missed a lot from the House side of the trial.

    6. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I must ask, are you watching the trial?

      1. His lawyers have asserted that the reason for withholding aid to Ukraine had to due with the fact they were responsible for interfering in the 2016 election."

      The defense has in no respect claimed that the aid was held up due to interference in the 2016 election.

      "2. The Lev Parnas tape, recorded at a small gathering, wherein President Trump advocates for "taking out" Ukraine ambassador Marie Yavonovitch."

      The tape has not been verified, and if one listens to the tape they will hear someone that may or may not be beTrump saying in a jovial tone "get rid of her" and the others laughing as he made a joke. Marie was not removed until 13  months after that comment. That is a fact.

      "3. John Bolton's book wherein he claims that Trump told him directly that they should withhold the aid to Ukraine until they investigated Joe Biden and others."

      This is a second-hand media report from the NYT. No one has seen this book, and we have no idea if this statement is being provided in a full context or if it is even in the book. It would be prudent to have this book looked at perhaps  Chief Justice Roberts could suggest the manuscript be viewed to ascertain if itis of value as evidence in this impeachment.

      The language of the  Constitution will and should exonerate the president. One must remember this is not a court of law. What I have witnessed is the House presented a very weak case for impeachment. And the Senate is doing their job with what they have been handed. The defense has pointed out so many problems with how Pelosi did not follow the proper procedures from the very beginning of this procedure.

      It may not be time to cry foul, but realize the there just was and is no proof to impeach the president. Lots of smoke, just no gun. One should not be condemned when a crime cannot be proven with facts.

      Please keep in mind, this is my opinion, a slight rebuttal of the information that crankalicious has provided.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image60
        Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        In other words, everyone is lying except the person who's lied over 10,000 times since being elected and continues to do so at an alarming rate, correct?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Randy, In no respect, have I accused anyone that testified a liar. In fact, the defense has used much of their testimony (In its proper context) to show that they themselves claimed their testimony was opinion-oriented. I found each and every witness well versed in their field, and in my opinion, gave truthful information. However, much of the information was second-hand, hearsay, and opinion-oriented. The only example of first hand was the overheard Sondland call, where the gentleman overheard Trump say ---" will he do the investigation"? However, the conversation between Sondland and the gentleman is Soundland giving an opinion.on what he thought Trump's attitude was on a subject. Plus, the overheard call was a day after Trump asked Zelinsky to start an investigation. Seems Trump might be curious and ask Sondland if he felt Zelinsky was going to do the investigation.  One has to keep in mind Trump never denied asking Zelinsky to investigate the Biden's and CrowdStrike.


          Not one claimed to have evidence to support any form of crime. Most just providing concerns about the call, and or the aid being held up

          In regards to the WAPO lie list, one only needs to consider what they are listing as lies, to realize most are based on trump's statement taken out of context. I gave up keeping up with the list due to just realizing that fact.

          I am curious, what part of my comment do you feel I called anyone a liar?

        2. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Randy, I am not calling anyone involved a liar. I am simply pointing out in the case of Lev's and the Bolton information has not been verified as of yet. Both reports seem to hold water. But, nothing has been verified on either alligations.

          Bolton has not given any form of a statement from himself or his attorney in regard to the content of the leak. I would believe him if he directly gives a statement, and actually clarifies the NYT vague statement and clarify it, give context to it. Randy, I will be buying his book, and reading it. I just think we need to know the full statement, as well as the rest of the conversation that took place.

          In regard to Lev, Someone here did leave a link that enabled me to listen to the tape. Naturally, I could only recognize one voice, the rest in the tape were others at the gathering. The voice I recognized appeared to be Trump's and he did say what was reported. Although, while listening to the tape I noted from beginning to end there was constant levity, lots of laughing. When Trump made that statement the laughing increased as if he may have been joking. I don't condone that kind of behavior.

          If I had to make a judgment if it were Trump, I believe it was. I have not heard much on the tape in the past weeks.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            "Randy, I will be buying his book, and reading it. I just think we need to know the full statement, as well as the rest of the conversation that took place."

            Is that why he refused to testify earlier?  Because he was writing a book and figured he would get more sales if this gem became known but never stated?  Makes more than a little sense; just an attempt to gain more money from the whole thing. 

            Does that taint anything he says?  You decide.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              The way he conducted himself when first asked to testify and then making an abrupt change in attitude after he was fired could give way to speculate this the reason he wrote a scorching book about his time in the Trump White House. It is possible his rendition of his one on ones with Trump could be tainted.

              Although Trump has the right to bring a lawsuit for defamation to rebuke anything that he feels a mistruth.

              I will say that the book was put together very quickly, and seemed to be leaked at just the appropriate time to aid the impeachment trial. As I said I feel it odd that Bolton has not confirmed or denied the leak as of yet. This looks more like a "buy the book ploy". And what I have found with that kind of ploy, as a rule, the book delivers very little that it was promised to.

            2. Randy Godwin profile image60
              Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              I think most people would trust Bolton's word over a known liar, Dan.

          2. Randy Godwin profile image60
            Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Rest assured there will be even more damning evidence in the coming days, Shar. Apparently Lev is smarter than he looks--not a criticism as I hope I am too--and has reportedly documented many exchanges with those "in the loop," as well as, the "Three Amigos."

            When one deals in the world of scoundrels, one needs to cover one's back. No telling what he has.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              I have to agree, I expect more from both Bolton and Lev, and I don't think it will be too long.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image60
                Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                But it will be too late. If Trump screws up again, this time with more damage to our country or citizens, the Senate Cons cannot claim they didn't have a chance to stop him.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Hmm.  You mean like the exploding economy, right?  Or the beautiful employment picture.  Maybe the falling illegal border crossings?  Or do you refer to how he screwed up and wages rose as a result?

                  Sorry, Randy, but Con's don't want to stop these things; such a desire is left to the Libs that feel that (their) ends always justifies the means and puts no limit on what they will do to remove Trump from Washington so they can control it themselves.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image60
                    Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    They apparently don't care what Trump does, whether it's legal or not. If they don't want to remove him for violating his oath of office, then he can do anything he wants to, like he claimed.

                2. Sharlee01 profile image86
                  Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Randy,  other than our society's morale, what damage do you feel Trump has done to the country. And what would you imagine him doing that will do damage to the country or our citizens?

                  I do understand many feel he has alienated some allies with his agenda in regard to foreign policy. However, I don't feel he has done damage. One must keep in mind presidents have term limits, and each, as a rule, introduce their own agenda.  This president may leave the country better than he found it in some respect. In some ways, he may leave it in need of change. But don't most presidents?

                  In regard to the Senate. I think they did their job in securing the Constitution and set a good precedent due to this impeachment. It will set a precedent to ensure the House will take the time needed to present a case they can prove before handing it to the Senate. WE will never know how this impeachment would have played out if the House took the time to fight for their beliefs. AS of now this impeachment did nothing but leave us all with questions, and opinions.

                  My own question --- envolved so many whys. Why did the house not take all the time needed to get every witness? When they saw the roadblocks from the WH and the DOJ is when they should have used all the powers the House is provided via the Constitution. What's ironic is the Trump's defense used the Constitution as well as our Government laws to beat the house.  The House should have fought fire with fire.

                  As I said the only good is a solid precedent has been set in regard to how impeachment should be handled in the investigatory phase.
                  So, this was not all for naught.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    If Trump has alienated some "allies" by requiring they pay their share of costs then they weren't much of an "ally".  Or so it seems to me - I have an aversion to "friends" that think more of my wallet than they do of me.

                  2. Randy Godwin profile image60
                    Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, we found out the oversight from Congress can literally be stonewalled for the length of a POTUS's term. And this is perfectly acceptable for those on the Right.

                    I wonder how you'll feel when a POTUS from the left does the same thing. There's precedent now, andyou won't be able to complain about it. Donald OJ Trump. Hail to the new king!

    7. Readmikenow profile image97
      Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Crank,

      1. Aid to the Ukraine was not withheld.  It was delayed.  Aid to countries have been delayed by many presidential administrations.  President Donald Trump has an obligation to investigate corruption.

      2. Who cares?  Every ambassador serves at the discretion of the president.  He can legally fire any ambassador of his choosing.  This is a nothing burger. 

      3. John Bolton is a disgruntled former employee. He also wants to get as much publicity for his book as possible.  This claim has gotten him so much free publicity his book is almost guaranteed to be a best seller and get him a big paycheck.  He provides no proof, just an accusation. 

      Again, the bottom line in this impeachment is.

      1. We all read the transcript released by President Donald Trump.
      2. Ukraine got the aid.  It was delayed like aid is delayed to countries for various reasons in every presidential administration.  obama always delayed appropriated aid to Israel.
      3. Ukraine got the aid and didn't begin an investigation into the Bidens.

      So, what was wrong?  Nothing.

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Mike, Is whether aid was withheld or delayed more than simply a semantics argument?

        In these discussions, I think it is just semantics, but I also think the reality of the situation demands that question be resolved. Because, if he withheld the funds then it seems he is guilty of violating the Impoundment Control Act, but if he merely delayed the disbursement then I don't see it as a violation.

        What do you think? Were the funds disbursed within the Congressional appropriation's mandate? I recall conversations about this, but not the answer, and I haven't checked for myself.

        As for the ambassador . . . meh, sure he has that right, and of course the action can only be subjectively debated, but it still stinks to me. Even if the only issue is Pres. Trump's 'style', it still stinks.

        Bolten? One thought immediately pops to mind. Really? Since he is no longer a Trump friend his motives are automatically assumed to be anti-Trump and untruthful? In my mind that is not a positive thing. I don't recall hearing all these "disgruntled employee" charges prior to this media leak. And at this point, you don't know if he has proof to provide, or not. Hell, at this point he hasn't even made an accusation yet, it is only a media leak that says he did.

        However, with the exception of replacing "transcript" with memorandum, your "bottom-line" is accurate.

        GA

        1. Readmikenow profile image97
          Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          GA,

          Anyone who has had to deal with the legal world knows that  semantics is important.  If you withhold something, someone doesn't get it.  If you delay something, people eventually get it.  It's a significant point.  I've seen attorneys walk away from a huge contract over whether the world "and" or "or" should be used in a specific section.

          So, the Ukrainian funds were not withheld.  They were delayed.

          "If he withheld the funds then it seems he is guilty of violating the Impoundment Control Act"

          President Donald Trump didn't do any thing that presidents back to the time of George Washington did.  Obama would always delay appropriated funds to Israel.

          Here is an article about the Obama Administration suspending aid to Pakistan.  Where was the outrage? Also, Biden did threaten Ukraine with withholding funds and publicly bragged about it. 

          https://www.npr.org/2011/07/10/13774666 … o-pakistan

          You may not have heard about Bolton being disgruntled, but he did leave the White House under unhappy circumstances.

          Here is an article about John Bolton being fired by President Donald Trump.

          "Bolton, a longtime critic of diplomacy with North Korea, had scheduled his foray to Mongolia weeks before Trump’s impromptu invitation to meet Kim. But the national security adviser’s isolation at such a high-profile moment underscored the growing disconnect between the two men.

          Their repeated clashes on policy and style reached an exclamation point Tuesday when Trump ousted Bolton..."

          https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/w … ohn-bolton

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Did I not hear last night in the hearing questions that Obama held up approved aid to the Ukraine for several years?  Not a few weeks, but years?

            Yet we're seeing feigned outrage over a hold so short that Ukrainian officials were not even aware of it.

      2. Randy Godwin profile image60
        Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Cool, Mike! Can you explain why he didn't go through the proper channels, and instead relied on Rudy to do his research rather than the experienced professionals hired for this purpose?

  2. Valeant profile image84
    Valeantposted 13 months ago

    In another thread, didn't Wilderness say he didn't watch the presentation of evidence from the House managers?  So isn't he basing his opinions on his media sources and not on the actual facts of the case?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image60
      Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Of course. I've watched or listened to almost every minute of the trial to form my opinions. Wonder what he'basing his on?

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      No, he didn't say that.  What he said was that he had watched some of it and there was zero evidence, only opinions from witnesses that agreed they did not "witness" anything like what their opinions were.

      This was strengthened considerably when the defense presented the rest of the story - the rest of the "testimony" which included, over and over, those admissions.

  3. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 13 months ago

    Gentlemen and ladies, do you think that extortion and bribery is not a crime in of itself? I certainly could not get away with it, why should the President? It is turning out just as I thought it would. Trump's guilt or innocence is now not at issue, but now whether the "act" is such that it rises to a level warranting impeachment. Quite clever of Trump's defense attorneys.

    Outside of proving Trumps involvement and intent, would it be a crime?

    If we attack the principle of impeachment here, when can it be validly used? Don't you think that there was enough evidence to impeach Richard Nixon for illegal wiretapping during Watergate?

    Listening to Alan, every instance of a President who has been impeached was a travesty and abuse of the Constitutional provision for impeachment.

    What did the Founding Fathers create the provision for if not for a remedy for abuse of discretion and power?

    And Wilderness,  as to your comments about an impartial jury? Are the 50 plus GOP senators determined to acquit Trump impartial?

    1. Ken Burgess profile image90
      Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      GA put forth the argument that lays to rest this imbecilic and partisan effort to Impeach the President.

      I will put forth the link he provided again.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqmhfyH09jM

      It puts to rest every single claim and argument the Democrats have made for Impeachment.  You either believe in the Constitution, precedence and law, or you do not.  If you believe in the Constitution, precedence and law, you cannot support this farcical effort to Impeach the President.

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Ken, I watched the Dershowitz testimony before Congress, and although he made a compelling argument about the definition of a standard where impeachment is a remedy, it would appear that according to him there were in actuality no crimes associated with any of the former Presidents that were impeached or involving Richard Nixon who was most certainly going to be that should have rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

        I understand the principle of not allowing the Executive to be under the control of the Legislative branch as they theoretically are co-equal in power. Impeachment based on partisanship, the President exercizing discr tionary authority in his job, or for actions that would in itself not be a crime, may well not be appropriate.

        If according to the article I attached and what Dershowitz alluded to, that as Nixon once said "it is all legal if the President does it" or that the President saw the national interest and the pursuit of his own re-election through whatever means necessary as one in the same?  Would the conservative have really given Obama that much latitude, most certainly not.

        https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-i … eed-2020-1




        How, realistically, can the Executive ever have his power checked and the line drawn? So, what is the mechanism, really? So, according to Dershowitz, what Nixon did was not a crime, but a matter of discretionary judgement not subject to any form of check? As the attached article points out and I support, that concept is a slippery slope to an imperial Presidency, without ethical behavior with the "law" as an inconvenience that can be skirted at his caprice.

        Is that what you Trump people and general conservatives are advocating?

        And while I don't like the partisan nature of much of the impeachment process, at least in the way it had been applied, the President is not a King who can do as he likes without restraint or accountability.

        So, I can't buy any into the Dershowitz explanation that attempts to absolve Trump and restructure th very concept of the impeachment process, in general.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          "How, realistically, can the Executive ever have his power checked and the line drawn?"

          We've seen that repeatedly as suits were filed over nearly every action Trump took.  Over and over, suits were filed.  Nearly all of those suits came back that he had used his power within the framework of the Constitution.

          So there IS a way of checking abuse of power.  The problem is that House Democrats wish to usurp that power for themselves - they wish to only allow the President to do what they wish done.  We are now in the position of watching as those same people that have tried for the past 3 years to take presidential power into their own hands resort to the political ploy of simply removing a duly elected president as their only option in limiting his legal power.

          1. Readmikenow profile image97
            Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            I think this tells us what the Democrat leadership is all about.

            "Then, Schiff dropped a doozy: “For precisely this reason,” he announced, “the president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.”

            https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin … in-in-2020

        2. Ken Burgess profile image90
          Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Dershowitz made the argument (and I am minimizing it to its purest simplest form) that if the actions of the President do not attain the level of consistent repetitive and fully provable crimes, or acts of treason, he should not be impeached.

          It should not be within the realm of the House to sit in judgement on every act, and determine for themselves the intent of that act, and then judge it in a partisan effort.

          I could easily make an argument that the President's actions were in the best interests of the Nation, as patriotic and altruistic an action as ever was made, he willingly risked his reputation and electorability to try and expose the corrupt and criminal acts of the former Vice President who used his son to launder billions of dollars from the Ukraine, China and who knows where else.

          All a matter of perspective... that is why irrefutable proof of crimes beyond doubt are critical in such an effort as impeachment of the President.

          But we did not get that from the House... what we got from them is no different than the Russian Conspiracy, they got up there and said he was guilty of these crimes, repeated over and over and over again charges that have no foundation in reality of facts.  Just opinions and perspectives.

          There is nothing provable to which Impeachment on any level is justifiable... if this does become something from which the Senate decides to impeach.. no President again in our history will be able to act on anything without the possibility of it being challenged by the majority party in the House, which will play to the masses making each and every act a political drama.

          It will be the end of the Republic.

          And our fall to something much worse.

          No matter how detestable the person may be who holds the Presidency, the authority with which to act independent of approval of Congress must be preserved.

          Impeachment should be reserved for serious and provable crimes that are to the detriment of the nation, the only thing Trump's actions could be detrimental to in this regard, are the Bidens, should they be found guilty of criminal activities... which is a whole other argument I do not want to open up here.

          Let me add -

          The Impeachment of Clinton was wrong, but it did follow precedence and procedure, it was via legal technicalities legit, but it was politically wrong, and the Republicans paid for their over-reach by being swept out of office.

          That act opened the door for this, which is more unsavory and abusive of power, for this current effort followed neither proper precedence and procedures for Impeachment, nor do they have a valid provable/legal reason for it.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image60
            Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            So why didn't Trump go through normal channels to investigate the Bidens, Ken? Instead, he had Rudy, Lev, and igor, who now are being investigated, do his dirty work for him.

          2. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            While I may or may not agree with Dershowitz, I think it's a credible argument. However, Ken, there's also the very likely possibility that if we don't impeach, it won't be too long before the next Democratic President is using foreign nations to do his dirty work and I think Republicans will be horrified by it.

            Further, these sort of precedents do not usually limit our politicians, they allow them to push the boundaries. Be careful what you wish for.

    2. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      It sounds like you are saying it is okay to do something the wrong way if you have the right reasons. As in the ends justify the means?

      Following the logic of your question about the Founders, why not ask why they included the parameters for impeachment? Why not just include the power of impeachment as a House power?

      GA

    3. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      "Gentlemen and ladies, do you think that extortion and bribery is not a crime in of itself?"

      This is quite simple to answer by referring to the appropriate federal statute. 

      "Outside of proving Trumps involvement and intent, would it be a crime?"

      No.  As has been repeatedly pointed out it is not only the President's prerogative but has been done with most of our foreign aid.

      "If we attack the principle of impeachment here, when can it be validly used?"

      When there has been Treason, Bribery or other "high" crimes rising to the level of treason or bribery.

      "Listening to Alan, every instance of a President who has been impeached was a travesty and abuse of the Constitutional provision for impeachment."

      I understood him to say that every other impeachment had been for criminal activity.  Perhaps we should both listen again?

      "What did the Founding Fathers create the provision for if not for a remedy for abuse of discretion and power?"

      For when there is positive evidence of treason, bribery or other "high" crimes rising to the level of the first two.  Certainly not when a partisan congress doesn't like having the "wrong" president and declares an abuse of power.  As was pointed out, most of our presidents have been accused of that particular thing.

      "Are the 50 plus GOP senators determined to acquit Trump impartial?"

      IMO, certainly not, any more than the 200 representatives were impartial in their determination to convict.  But that has little to nothing to do with the question of an extremely plain conflict of interest, inevitably resulting the impossibility of showing impartiality.

      I mentioned that we would never, ever allow such a conflict to arise in our court systems; jurors are excused for far, far less than that and judges routinely recuse themselves for much less.  Why don't we require it of Senators with such an obvious conflict?  Not particularly arguing, just questioning why it is not done when it is such a big deal in every other trial?  Even the Republicans aren't raising the issue - why not?  Understanding is the desired result, not argument.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image60
        Randy Godwinposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Can you name an instance where a former POTUS leveraged a foreign power to aid in his reelection?

        1. Ken Burgess profile image90
          Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Where is the proof that this was done?

          Conjecture, Opinion, speculation do not equivalate to fact.

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            "equivalate"?

  4. hard sun profile image84
    hard sunposted 13 months ago

    The public outrage is the reason for the withholding. That much is clear.

  5. profile image0
    Onusonusposted 13 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/83576722_10214899737917939_1583296224306397184_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=ileIqedTMpwAX_lonC1&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=7753aec13de60b037e351282c1726130&oe=5ED5A682

 
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)