is it impeachable to ask ukraine to investigate political adversaries?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Whataboutism...so there's no valid argument to be mad in pointing to examples of obama and senate democrats doing what you want to impeach trump for?

As detbuch said, youve never heard of the concept of precedent?

I don't see them as anyway close to the same and trying to debate that point is a circular discussion, so I'm not going to attempt it. As for Detbuch's claim a previous precedent makes this a nothing burger I find that to be so hypocritical, when FOREVER he falls back on the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. Well I'm pretty sure they would see this as an impeachable offense, as they specifically wrote it to prevent a foreign power from interfering in our democratic process and elections and to seek political advantage or personal gains was against the rules. I know you three or four can spin this until you fingers hurt, but even if they don't get the votes in the senate and I"m not so sure some Republicans not in a strong position moving forward might not flip; this will not help Trump moving forward.

I maintain, this is the most corrupt president and administration of our life time, I think history will see it that way and if you don't; it's ok because I know in your minds the means justify the end. Trump island isn't a place I want to live and his complete disregard for the environment for another four years would do serious harm long term. I suspect our allies and foes are not to happy with where the leading nation of the free world is and I have no doubt they know the blame lies at the top of this corrupt food chain.

But hey keep circling the wagons, get those MAGA hats washed and ready, buckle up it's going to be a bumpy ride into 2020.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I don't see them as anyway close to the same and trying to debate that point is a circular discussion, so I'm not going to attempt it. As for Detbuch's claim a previous precedent makes this a nothing burger I find that to be so hypocritical, when FOREVER he falls back on the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. Well I'm pretty sure they would see this as an impeachable offense, as they specifically wrote it to prevent a foreign power from interfering in our democratic process and elections and to seek political advantage or personal gains was against the rules. I know you three or four can spin this until you fingers hurt, but even if they don't get the votes in the senate and I"m not so sure some Republicans not in a strong position moving forward might not flip; this will not help Trump moving forward.

I maintain, this is the most corrupt president and administration of our life time, I think history will see it that way and if you don't; it's ok because I know in your minds the means justify the end. Trump island isn't a place I want to live and his complete disregard for the environment for another four years would do serious harm long term. I suspect our allies and foes are not to happy with where the leading nation of the free world is and I have no doubt they know the blame lies at the top of this corrupt food chain.

But hey keep circling the wagons, get those MAGA hats washed and ready, buckle up it's going to be a bumpy ride into 2020.

^^^^^^ This

PENCE 2020!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

As for Detbuch's claim a previous precedent makes this a nothing burger I find that to be so hypocritical,

I find that what you say destroys any credibility in any of your comments here. I did not say that precedent "makes this a nothingburger". Putting words in my mouth in order to debunk what I said is a form of lying that debunks whatever you say. Precedent is meaningful, calling something "whataboutism" is meaningless. It is a copout from acknowledging any importance in a statement you would rather not discuss.

when FOREVER he falls back on the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. Well I'm pretty sure they would see this as an impeachable offense, as they specifically wrote it to prevent a foreign power from interfering in our democratic process and elections and to seek political advantage or personal gains was against the rules.

If you're so "pretty sure" then point out in the Constitution how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you're so "pretty sure" then point out in the Constitution how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional.

Boy are you naive if you think that's what Trump was doing, but hey I get it, the right needs to spin this now and it's going to be very hard to do. Let's even assume for a minute those where Trump's noble intentions, which based on history of behavior is a stretch on it's own, what about holding up tax payer paid for, bipartisan military funds until the leader of a foreign government agree's to give him a favor? You keep spinning baby, you guys are good at it, I"m going to enjoy the show.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Boy are you naive if you think that's what Trump was doing, but hey I get it, the right needs to spin this now and it's going to be very hard to do. Let's even assume for a minute those where Trump's noble intentions, which based on history of behavior is a stretch on it's own, what about holding up tax payer paid for, bipartisan military funds until the leader of a foreign government agree's to give him a favor? You keep spinning baby, you guys are good at it, I"m going to enjoy the show.

So you don't know what you're talking about re the Constitution and the phone call.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you're so "pretty sure" then point out in the Constitution how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional.

Yea, asking to investigate something where there's no evidence of wrongdoing, subject just happens to be the leading political opponent and you're only interested in corruption that benefits you personally.

Right.

[Pete F.]

"Total panic as the reality of the jeopardy for President Trump begins to set in... The panic within the White House comes as we learn new details about the impeachment inquiry on Capitol Hill. Democrats signaling they're poised to move fast" Nicole Wallace



Rudy Giuliani is now saying he knew Joe Biden and associates would kill him for investigating Ukrainian situation.

Tulsi Gabbard is now the first Republican sitting member of Congress to support Impeachment.

Secretary of State POMPEO has been subpoenaed by House committees to produce Ukraine documents.

And the committees have set a schedule of 5 depositions:

October 2: Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
October 3: Ambassador Kurt Volker
October 7: Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent
October 8: Counselor T. Ulrich Brechbuhl
October 10: Ambassador Gordon Sondland


Lindsey Graham
@LindseyGrahamSC
If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.
5:03 PM · May 3, 2016

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Tulsi Gabbard is now the first Republican sitting member of Congress to support Impeachment.

Um wha?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Um wha?

"The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

"Leave him alone, he's on a roll."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by spence

Um wha?

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

"The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

"Leave him alone, he's on a roll."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just checking to see if you were paying attention

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

"The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

"Leave him alone, he's on a roll."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was one of the funniest sketches that I used to hear repeated on various radio stations. I wanted to find some way to slip that in on one of these threads. You found the perfect post to do it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you're so "pretty sure" then point out in the Constitution how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional.

Start with the Constitution for Dummies version of Art. II Section 4

The President, the Vice President, and other officers of the United States, can be kicked out of office (impeached) if they are found guilty of double-crossing (betraying) the country, offering people money or getting money to do something dishonest, or other really big crimes.

But if your reading comprehension level is higher than that you could move on to this explanation of how Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine does rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor under Art. II, § 4 of the Constitution written by Neal Katyal and George Conway and excerpted from WAPO

“The ... phrase ... ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ ... was a historical term of art, derived from impeachments in the British Parliament. ... The framers ... knew what it meant. It meant, as Alexander Hamilton later phrased it, ‘the abuse or violation of some public trust.’”

“The framers viewed the president as a fiduciary, the government of the United States as a sacred trust and the people of the United States as the beneficiaries of that trust.”

”They believed that a president would break his oath if he engaged in self-dealing — if he used his powers to put his own interests above the nation’s. That would be the paradigmatic case for impeachment.”

“That’s exactly what appears to be at issue today. ... It appears that the president might have used his official powers ... to leverage a foreign government into helping him defeat a potential political opponent in the United States.”

“If Trump did that, it would be the ultimate impeachable act. Trump has already done more than enough to warrant impeachment ... with his relentless attempts ... to sabotage the Mueller investigation ....”

“The president’s efforts were impeachable because, in committing those obstructive acts, he put his personal interests above the nation’s: He tried to stop an investigation into whether a hostile foreign power, Russia, ....”

“... tried to interfere with our democracy — ... because he found it personally embarrassing. Trump breached his duties... not only because he likely broke the law but also because, through his disregard for the law, he put his self-interest first.”

“The current whistle=blowing allegations ... are even worse. Unlike the allegations of conspiracy with Russia in 2016 ..., these concern Trump’s actions as president ... and his exercise of presidential powers over foreign policy ....”

“It is high time for Congress to do its duty .... Given how Trump seems ... bent on putting himself above the law, something like what might have happened with Ukraine — abusing presidential authority for personal benefit — was almost inevitable.”

“Yet if that is what occurred, part of the responsibility lies with Congress, which has failed to act on the blatant obstruction ... detailed months ago.

“Congressional procrastination has probably emboldened Trump, ....”

“... and it risks emboldening future presidents who might turn out to be of his sorry ilk. To borrow John Dean’s ... metaphor once again, there is a cancer on the presidency, and cancers, if not removed, only grow.”

”Congress bears the duty to use the tools provided by the Constitution to remove that cancer now, before it’s too late.”

“As Elbridge Gerry put it at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, ‘A good magistrate will not fear impeachments. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.’ By now, Congress should know which one Trump is.”

or this:
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/public...h-misdemeanors

or this:
https://t.co/jh8leocLkk?amp=1

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Start with the Constitution for Dummies version of Art. II Section 4

The President, the Vice President, and other officers of the United States, can be kicked out of office (impeached) if they are found guilty of double-crossing (betraying) the country, offering people money or getting money to do something dishonest, or other really big crimes.

But if your reading comprehension level is higher than that you could move on to this explanation of how Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine does rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor under Art. II, § 4 of the Constitution written by Neal Katyal and George Conway and excerpted from WAPO

“The ... phrase ... ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ ... was a historical term of art, derived from impeachments in the British Parliament. ... The framers ... knew what it meant. It meant, as Alexander Hamilton later phrased it, ‘the abuse or violation of some public trust.’”

“The framers viewed the president as a fiduciary, the government of the United States as a sacred trust and the people of the United States as the beneficiaries of that trust.”

”They believed that a president would break his oath if he engaged in self-dealing — if he used his powers to put his own interests above the nation’s. That would be the paradigmatic case for impeachment.”

“That’s exactly what appears to be at issue today. ... It appears that the president might have used his official powers ... to leverage a foreign government into helping him defeat a potential political opponent in the United States.”

“If Trump did that, it would be the ultimate impeachable act. Trump has already done more than enough to warrant impeachment ... with his relentless attempts ... to sabotage the Mueller investigation ....”

“The president’s efforts were impeachable because, in committing those obstructive acts, he put his personal interests above the nation’s: He tried to stop an investigation into whether a hostile foreign power, Russia, ....”

“... tried to interfere with our democracy — ... because he found it personally embarrassing. Trump breached his duties... not only because he likely broke the law but also because, through his disregard for the law, he put his self-interest first.”

“The current whistle=blowing allegations ... are even worse. Unlike the allegations of conspiracy with Russia in 2016 ..., these concern Trump’s actions as president ... and his exercise of presidential powers over foreign policy ....”

“It is high time for Congress to do its duty .... Given how Trump seems ... bent on putting himself above the law, something like what might have happened with Ukraine — abusing presidential authority for personal benefit — was almost inevitable.”

“Yet if that is what occurred, part of the responsibility lies with Congress, which has failed to act on the blatant obstruction ... detailed months ago.

“Congressional procrastination has probably emboldened Trump, ....”

“... and it risks emboldening future presidents who might turn out to be of his sorry ilk. To borrow John Dean’s ... metaphor once again, there is a cancer on the presidency, and cancers, if not removed, only grow.”

”Congress bears the duty to use the tools provided by the Constitution to remove that cancer now, before it’s too late.”

“As Elbridge Gerry put it at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, ‘A good magistrate will not fear impeachments. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.’ By now, Congress should know which one Trump is.”

or this:
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/public...h-misdemeanors

or this:
https://t.co/jh8leocLkk?amp=1

There is no solid evidence, only assumption or conjecture, that Trump asked for assistance for personal gain.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There is no solid evidence, only assumption or conjecture, that Trump asked for assistance for personal gain.

If you're speaking of a quid pro quo as far as evidence goes
1. Don’t need one
2. It’s arguably direct
3. It’s certainly indirect

But ask a prosecuting attorney if he would have enough evidence to feel confident of convicting Trump and his co-conspirators on conspiracy, bribery, campaign finance violations and other charges. There are rarely smoking guns in any of those cases, then again most perpetrators don't say I did it, or look it's alright, they committed that crime also.

But it doesn't matter, that is why it is held in Congress. It is a political event. Because what you do as President is and should be held to a far higher standard than what you do as a citizen.

The criminal trial comes later.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If you're speaking of a quid pro quo as far as evidence goes
1. Don’t need one
2. It’s arguably direct
3. It’s certainly indirect

But ask a prosecuting attorney if he would have enough evidence to feel confident of convicting Trump and his co-conspirators on conspiracy, bribery, campaign finance violations and other charges. There are rarely smoking guns in any of those cases, then again most perpetrators don't say I did it, or look it's alright, they committed that crime also.

But it doesn't matter, that is why it is held in Congress. It is a political event. Because what you do as President is and should be held to a far higher standard than what you do as a citizen.

The criminal trial comes later.

Like I said, you don't have solid evidence. Just conjecture.