The Trump Impeachment Thread

[opelgt1969]

He withheld money (aid), but promised to hand it over in exchange for a personal favor from the Ukraine. How is that not bribery? Where's the difficulty here?

I would say that 90% of past presidents have done the same.

 

[TenEightyOne]

having a President nobody voted into office

Currently there's a President who got fewer votes than the second-placed candidate. It's all arbitrary somewhere along the line.

He withheld money (aid), but promised to hand it over in exchange for a personal favor from the Ukraine. How is that not bribery? Where's the difficulty here?

Loyalty.

I would say that 90% of past presidents have done the same.

Examples?

 

[Dotini]

He withheld money (aid), but promised to hand it over in exchange for a personal favor from the Ukraine. How is that not bribery? Where's the difficulty here?

IMVHO, if that's all, that's not anywhere near enough. So what if Trump tried to coerce a foreign President? Presidents have been doing that for centuries, it's called foreign policy, that's his job.

 

[Danoff]

IMVHO, if that's all, that's not anywhere near enough. So what if Trump tried to coerce a foreign President? Presidents have been doing that for centuries, it's called foreign policy, that's his job.

...on behalf of the American people perhaps. On his own behalf with the goal of undermining the political process... absolutely not.

 

[ryzno]

https://www.wsbradio.com/news/natio...mpeachment-procedures/JEEF63InajUDKr5M4QOmVJ/
House passed the resolution.

 

[Dotini]

...on behalf of the American people perhaps. On his own behalf with the goal of undermining the political process... absolutely not.

I'll take your point up with the lawyer this weekend. Perhaps he can clear it up.

 

[Liquid]

I would say that 90% of past presidents have done the same.

IMVHO, if that's all, that's not anywhere near enough. So what if Trump tried to coerce a foreign President? Presidents have been doing that for centuries, it's called foreign policy, that's his job.

Yes but this one got caught.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano:

That is a mouthful of facts to swallow in one bite, but the legal implications are straightforward and profound. Whether one agrees with federal law or not, it is a crime to solicit assistance for a federal campaign from a foreign government. As well, the crime of bribery consists of a government official refraining from performing a legal duty until a thing of value is delivered to him.

Trump admits he held up the $391 million. He admits he asked for a favor from the Ukrainian president. And he admits that the favor was to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son. He even gilded the lily by publicly asking the Chinese government to investigate Biden.
Enter Attorney General William Barr. After knowledge of the presidential holdup of the $391 million in aid to Ukraine became public, the president asked Barr for a formal legal opinion that dirt on a political opponent is not a thing of value.

Barr had his researchers and writers in the Office of Legal Counsel oblige. That legal opinion, which Trump has touted as a form of exoneration, has been so widely mocked in legal and political circles – because dirt on an opponent is the most valuable commodity for a political campaign, and candidates pay dearly for it – that congressional Republicans have stopped referring to it. They know better.

It's not good when your propaganda arm is opining in such a concise and devastating way.

I will give Trump this: He probably had no clue what he was asking Ukraine to do was unethical or illegal. Because, mostly, he is a dumb person. The narcissist part plays a role too, but I think this one is mostly down to dumb.

 

[PocketZeven]

I would say that 90% of past presidents have done the same.

If 90% of past presidents is Nixon, I agree with you 90%.

 

[Biggles]

Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano:



It's not good when your propaganda arm is opining in such a concise and devastating way.

I will give Trump this: He probably had no clue what he was asking Ukraine to do was unethical or illegal. Because, mostly, he is a dumb person. The narcissist part plays a role too, but I think this one is mostly down to dumb.

Trump carries the same unethical behaviours he exhibited throughout his business career to the office of POTUS. He doesn't understand there might be a difference.

Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano:

It's not good when your propaganda arm is opining in such a concise and devastating way.

Judge Nap is just mad Trump didn't bribe him with a SCOTUS appointment. *

*Consensus of Fox Trump cultists who are waiting for Judge Nap to go the way of Shep Smith.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Done. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/31/774777869/house-to-vote-to-formalize-outline-impeachment-inquiry

They knew they had the votes back then, but they wanted to (and were allowed to) gather more information. As I said at the time, once they wanted to have a public vote, they would. And that is exactly what happened.

Edit:

Pelosi is writing a spot in the history books for herself.

I'm not exactly sure what they voted for, but we'll see what happens.

 

[ScottPuss20]

My understanding is that Trump was concerned with the dealings that occurred with the Ukranian President and Joe Biden's son. I don't think he was asking for aid from Ukraine but rather asking for a favour to ensure that there weren't any dodging dealings. But I'm probably wrong.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I will give Trump this: He probably had no clue what he was asking Ukraine to do was unethical or illegal. Because, mostly, he is a dumb person. The narcissist part plays a role too, but I think this one is mostly down to dumb.

I honestly believe that if Trump can get away with what he seems to have done then it will be down to how dumb he is. It seems plausible to me that he is so stupid and narcissistic that he honestly didn't know what he was doing was illegal nor did he plan on doing what he did.

 

[Touring Mars]

One thing that seems problematic is the seemingly partisan nature of the impeachment proceedings. I guess it will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court (will it?) which is supposedly above party politics (is it?), but that could take a very long time.

One thing that was pointed out recently was that in the cases of Clinton and Nixon, impeachment proceedings occurred after guilt had been established, while in this case, it seems that impeachment proceedings are happening in tandem with the investigations into what actually happened, which is also playing into suspicions that the whole endeavour is politically motivated.

I’m no supporter of Trump, and it certainly looks like he is bang to rights on this, but it does seem that a bunch of Democrats ganging up to try to get him removed from office is not likely to succeed, not least in the eyes of the public who support Trump.

 

[Danoff]

One thing that was pointed out recently was that in the cases of Clinton and Nixon, impeachment proceedings occurred after guilt had been established

I'm not sure that's true. Or at least not very differently than in this case. In Clinton's case I think guilt had been less established.

 

[PocketZeven]

My understanding is that Trump was concerned with the dealings that occurred with the Ukranian President and Joe Biden's son. I don't think he was asking for aid from Ukraine but rather asking for a favour to ensure that there weren't any dodging dealings. But I'm probably wrong.

It wasnt a dealing with the president of the ukrain. I suspect you have been misinformed.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...raine-wild-claims-with-little-basis-quicktake

But why specifically Biden's Son? And why withhold aid to the ukraine? The problem is that he was asking for a "favour" to look for dirt surrounding biden, who is his political opponent. This is directly asking a foreign power to aid in his political campaign. And I havent even mentioned the quid pro quo.


edit: the so called "corruption" is using his fathers fame for personal business. Which is extremely ironic. Do you think Trump's kids do not profit from their father being president in deals with foreign powers?

One thing that seems problematic is the seemingly partisan nature of the impeachment proceedings. I guess it will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court (will it?) which is supposedly above party politics (is it?), but that could take a very long time.

One thing that was pointed out recently was that in the cases of Clinton and Nixon, impeachment proceedings occurred after guilt had been established, while in this case, it seems that impeachment proceedings are happening in tandem with the investigations into what actually happened, which is also playing into suspicions that the whole endeavour is politically motivated.

I’m no supporter of Trump, and it certainly looks like he is bang to rights on this, but it does seem that a bunch of Democrats ganging up to try to get him removed from office is not likely to succeed, not least in the eyes of the public who support Trump.

No it isnt. The democrats are following the rules that the republicans (bengazi) established. The whole narrative about "secret" impeachment proceedings is nonsense from the start.

 

[huskeR32]

I'll take your point up with the lawyer this weekend. Perhaps he can clear it up.

I'm sorry, but you need a lawyer to explain to you the difference between a president leveraging foreign aid to advance the interests of the United States of America, versus doing so to advance his own personal interests and re-election chances? Really?

--

I'm not exactly sure what they voted for

Um. They voted on the thing you whined about them not having already voted for...?

--

My gods, the willful ignorance on display so far in this thread is really something to behold.

--

I would say that 90% of past presidents have done the same.

@TenEightyOne isn't the only one interested in hearing some examples to substantiate this claim.

 

[opelgt1969]

I'm sorry, but you need a lawyer to explain to you the difference between a president leveraging foreign aid to advance the interests of the United States of America, versus doing so to advance his own personal interests and re-election chances? Really?

--



Um. They voted on the thing you whined about them not having already voted for...?

--

My gods, the willful ignorance on display so far in this thread is really something to behold.

--



@TenEightyOne isn't the only one interested in hearing some examples to substantiate this claim.

So it stands to reason that the U.S. should be able to withhold military aid—either to try to force better behavior, or simply to stop wasting taxpayer money on something that’s not working. It’s not especially rare—historically, presidents and lawmakers have done this for all kinds of reasons. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan did it to Israel, stopping the sale of cluster bombs to the country for six years after Congress found Israel had used them against civilians in Lebanon. The George W. Bush administration once suspended military aid to 35 countries simultaneously when they refused to guarantee U.S. immunity in potential cases at the recently formed International Criminal Court. (Much of this money has since been reinstated, particularly for NATO and major non-NATO allies.) There’s a law that bans assistance to human-rights abusers, though it applies to military units, not to entire countries. It was this law, for instance, that Trump’s State Department invoked in 2017 when declaring Burmese units involved in abuses against Rohingya Muslims to be ineligible for military aid.

 

[Danoff]

So it stands to reason that the U.S. should be able to withhold military aid—either to try to force better behavior, or simply to stop wasting taxpayer money on something that’s not working. It’s not especially rare—historically, presidents and lawmakers have done this for all kinds of reasons. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan did it to Israel, stopping the sale of cluster bombs to the country for six years after Congress found Israel had used them against civilians in Lebanon. The George W. Bush administration once suspended military aid to 35 countries simultaneously when they refused to guarantee U.S. immunity in potential cases at the recently formed International Criminal Court. (Much of this money has since been reinstated, particularly for NATO and major non-NATO allies.) There’s a law that bans assistance to human-rights abusers, though it applies to military units, not to entire countries. It was this law, for instance, that Trump’s State Department invoked in 2017 when declaring Burmese units involved in abuses against Rohingya Muslims to be ineligible for military aid.

Discontinuing aid is not the problem. The reason is the problem.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Those are all for geo-political reasons. This is for an election. As in personal gain.

 

[PocketZeven]

So it stands to reason that the U.S. should be able to withhold military aid—either to try to force better behavior, or simply to stop wasting taxpayer money on something that’s not working.

He didnt use leverage to ask for any of those.

Finding dirt about a political opponent before a re-election does not count as "better behavior" or waste of taxpayer money, or does it?
If he was trying to "fight corruption" as the narrative the right have chosen... why in the hell did he send his personal lawyer to the ukraine? Was he so dedicated he wanted to spend his personal money to fight corruption in the ukraine?

 

[huskeR32]

So it stands to reason that the U.S. should be able to withhold military aid—either to try to force better behavior, or simply to stop wasting taxpayer money on something that’s not working.

Surely trying to force that other country to investigate your own personal political rival (i.e., Hunter Biden) does not fall under this umbrella.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

So it stands to reason that the U.S. should be able to withhold military aid—either to try to force better behavior, or simply to stop wasting taxpayer money on something that’s not working. It’s not especially rare—historically, presidents and lawmakers have done this for all kinds of reasons. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan did it to Israel, stopping the sale of cluster bombs to the country for six years after Congress found Israel had used them against civilians in Lebanon. The George W. Bush administration once suspended military aid to 35 countries simultaneously when they refused to guarantee U.S. immunity in potential cases at the recently formed International Criminal Court. (Much of this money has since been reinstated, particularly for NATO and major non-NATO allies.) There’s a law that bans assistance to human-rights abusers, though it applies to military units, not to entire countries. It was this law, for instance, that Trump’s State Department invoked in 2017 when declaring Burmese units involved in abuses against Rohingya Muslims to be ineligible for military aid.

Other than embarrassing Joe Biden, at best, what does withholding aide to Ukraine, with the goal of investigating two US citizens, actually accomplish for the United States? I fully grant you that it potentially accomplishes a lot of Donald Trump. But that's a different thing....

 

[ScottPuss20]

It wasnt a dealing with the president of the ukrain. I suspect you have been misinformed.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...raine-wild-claims-with-little-basis-quicktake

But why specifically Biden's Son? And why withhold aid to the ukraine? The problem is that he was asking for a "favour" to look for dirt surrounding biden, who is his political opponent. This is directly asking a foreign power to aid in his political campaign. And I havent even mentioned the quid pro quo.

Joe Biden's son is a crook. He has every right to be investigated. But did Trump withhold aid or not? So the supposedly illegal part is that Trump asked a foreign power to investigate a policital opponent? Even though Joe Biden's son isn't actually running for office? Hunter Biden is not a policital opponent of Donald Trump, so I don't understand how Joe can be crying foul. What, because he thinks his campaign will be compromised?

 

[Danoff]

Joe Biden's son is a crook.

Citation needed.

He has every right to be investigated.

Huh?

But did Trump withhold aid or not?

Yes.

So the supposedly illegal part is that Trump asked a foreign power to investigate a policital opponent?

Impeachable offense, yes.

Even though Joe Biden's son isn't actually running for office?

Yes.

Hunter Biden is not a policital opponent of Donald Trump, so I don't understand how Joe can be crying foul.

Trump's tweets characterize it as "the biden family was PAID OFF". So his own tweets draw the link. There is no imply it, he's done it for you. Furthermore, the (at least one) accusation is that Joe Biden interfered on his son's behalf in the Ukraine.

What, because he thinks his campaign will be compromised?

Yes.

 

[PocketZeven]

Joe Biden's son is a crook. He has every right to be investigated. But did Trump withhold aid or not? So the supposedly illegal part is that Trump asked a foreign power to investigate a policital opponent? Even though Joe Biden's son isn't actually running for office? Hunter Biden is not a policital opponent of Donald Trump, so I don't understand how Joe can be crying foul. What, because he thinks his campaign will be compromised?

Why is he a crook? Because Trump said so? edit: what illegal activity makes him a crook?

He withheld aid to ask for that favour. That is how the witnesses are likely going to testify.

Yes Biden's campaign would be compromised. That isnt rocketscience.

edit:





Does this guy have any morals?

 

[stonesfan129]

I think it's just another waste of time like the Russia collusion thing because various people don't like that he beat Hillary in 2016. If they're going to impeach, they should just impeach and then show the evidence that he committed a crime and be done with it. The difference compared to Richard Nixon is that with Nixon there was clear evidence of a crime. I think most Americans are not convinced Trump committed a crime. Say what you will, fooled by Fox News propaganda, etc; you have to convince the American voters if you want this to succeed.

 

[Rallywagon]

I think it's just another waste of time like the Russia collusion thing because various people don't like that he beat Hillary in 2016. If they're going to impeach, they should just impeach and then show the evidence that he committed a crime and be done with it. The difference compared to Richard Nixon is that with Nixon there was clear evidence of a crime. I think most Americans are not convinced Trump committed a crime. Say what you will, fooled by Fox News propaganda, etc; you have to convince the American voters if you want this to succeed.

Not really. His impeachment doesnt come up in a ballot. The American people are not trying the president, and have no say in any part of the proceedings other than to write letters of approval or disapproval to their Congress and Senate officials.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think it's just another waste of time like the Russia collusion thing because various people don't like that he beat Hillary in 2016. If they're going to impeach, they should just impeach and then show the evidence that he committed a crime and be done with it. The difference compared to Richard Nixon is that with Nixon there was clear evidence of a crime. I think most Americans are not convinced Trump committed a crime. Say what you will, fooled by Fox News propaganda, etc; you have to convince the American voters if you want this to succeed.

There was no twitter, also politics and the media were less polarised at the time. The reasons why so many people are not convinced is because of Trump delegitimizing the media and the distortion of the facts by the rightwing media and the absurd loyalty to Trump of some politicians.

I also read a recent article on how in the past there used to be liberal republicans and conservative democrats.

 

[Biggles]

I think it's just another waste of time like the Russia collusion thing because various people don't like that he beat Hillary in 2016. If they're going to impeach, they should just impeach and then show the evidence that he committed a crime and be done with it. The difference compared to Richard Nixon is that with Nixon there was clear evidence of a crime. I think most Americans are not convinced Trump committed a crime. Say what you will, fooled by Fox News propaganda, etc; you have to convince the American voters if you want this to succeed.

What an odd comment. It's not accepted practice to convict somebody & THEN show the evidence.

In Nixon's case there was clear evidence of a crime, but what took a while was to uncover the evidence that the President himself was connected to the crime ... & then engaged in a conspiracy to cover up his involvement. Nixon was never actually impeached as he resigned once it had become clear he had lost the support of Republicans.

In Trump's case, the primary evidence is Trump's own words. The corroborating evidence (so far) is that other people in the diplomatic corps understood that what Trump was doing was trying to sideline the foreign policy & security interests of the United States in order to serve his own narrow, personal political interests.

As the hearings have proceeded Trump & his enablers has attempted to smear & intimidate life-time public servants - people who have served for decades under a variety of administrations, Democrat & Republican. The narrative from the Fox News propaganda department is that ALL these people are just part of the "deep state" ... that is, except for the actual journalists on staff, like Chris Wallace or Shepard Smith - who just resigned - or independent voices, like Judge Napolitano.

... I guess I could also add Fox anchor Brett Baier to that list:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/br...inquiry-marie-yovanovitch-adam-schiff-twitter

To Fox viewers/listeners/readers ANYONE who criticizes the dear leader becomes a Rhino & a Never Trumper. It's really quite bizarre & disturbing how the Trump cultists will denigrate absolutely anyone who finds fault with Trump, regardless of how inappropriate or unsavoury his behaviour.