Impeachment

bystander said:
I do have a problem with what is clear in my mind: Removing Trump by any means necessary has been the agenda from the day he won the election. It is very difficult for me to stomach the sanctimony and refusal to accept anything but impeachment. People like Mr. O'Rourke were calling for impeachment before they saw the Mueller report. They were reckless in their pronouncements. It gave away their hand.
Click to expand...

Yep. Most people who have actual reasoning skills can see this for what it is.
 
Seattle Husker said:
That's still to be determined.

With that said, a law doesn't need to be broken for impeachment to occur, thus the very ambiguous "high crimes and misdemeanors" and a political solution for impeachment enshrined by our founding fathers.
Click to expand...

There wasn't any law broken. I know you want it to be but there wasn't. The dems will come up with nothing because there is nothing there. This will become a huge nothingburger as everything else has been. This was politics from the beginning. Before you start, the Mueller Report was a nothingburger which was shown during Mueller's testimony.
 
Last edited:
Have we had anyone impeached out of office when no one broke a law? Possible, but I don't think anyone has gone there.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
What Trump/Guiliani is not any government investigation. It's 100% political which makes it an extreme abuse of power which should concern us all, absent the typical tribalism.
Click to expand...

Guiliani says that the State Department told him to reach out to Ukraine.
 
Clinton was impeached for, among other things, two counts of perjury to a grand jury and Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act. It was argued that both impeachments were politically motivated (though they were both most assuredly guilty) but I would ask if there has been a single decision on the federal level since the ratification of the Constitution that wasn’t politically motivated.

I’ll get back to my corn dog and ginger ale now.
 
Seattle Husker said:
It is a political act. So where do you stand on a sitting POTUS seeking help from foreign governments for their own political gain? Acceptable?
Click to expand...

Biden is one of many democrats running for president. That doesn't automatically makes it impossible for Trump to bring them up during a foreign investigation. What you're saying isn't backed up by law or common sense. Now, if Guiliani has lied about being pushed by the state department to do this then we have a problem.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
That doesn't automatically makes it impossible for Trump to bring them up during a foreign investigation.
Click to expand...

Put it on a sliding scale. With 1 being no intent/thought about the elections process, and 100 being absolutely intended for personal election gain, where does the phone call and decision go? At what number would that need to be for it to be "harmful?" Or "backed up by law?"
 
Horns11 said:
Put it on a sliding scale. With 1 being no intent/thought about the elections process, and 100 being absolutely intended for personal election gain, where does the phone call and decision go? At what number would that need to be for it to be "harmful?" Or "backed up by law?"
Click to expand...

That's the problem. You guys are trying to put something subjective into something that doesn't belong there. Did he break the law? No, he didn't.
 
Garmel said:
That's the problem. You guys are trying to put something subjective into something that doesn't belong there. Did he break the law? No, he didn't.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a simple question. Answering is so tough because then the tribalism will be exposed.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I thought it was a simple question. Answering is so tough because then the tribalism will be exposed.
Click to expand...

That why we don't have a habit of impeaching people when no law has been broken. Doing it subjectively as the dems wish to do is dangerous because what one person finds outrageous another person might not find it to be.
 
Garmel said:
That's the problem. You guys are trying to put something subjective into something that doesn't belong there. Did he break the law? No, he didn't.
Click to expand...

It's not subjective. If a lawyer can stand in front of potential jurors and use the same exact analogy for probable cause, then so can someone who looks at the actions/intent of the president.
 
Seattle Husker said:
This thread has become emblematic of the Trump Administration. It's devolved into crazy conspiracy theories, pithy insults and stereotypes.

Meanwhile, a serious impeachment inquiry has started, only the 4th time in US history. Where have all the adults gone?
Click to expand...

Serious? I think that is your problem. Half of America does not take it as serious because the democrats have been clamoring for impeachment since Jan 2017.

In this latest attempt, the hearing investigating started with the democrat chair lying about the transcript while later calling it "parody."

The media lies everyday about the call as well by saying he asked them to "dig up dirt" on Biden. What he actually spoke about was corruption. He said Ukraine should investigate Biden given his son was given a $50,000 board seat on a company that Biden is on record bragging about closing an investigation on by withholding aid.

As stated earlier, I am all for impeachment coming to the Senate. Let's investigate every government official who worked with Ukraine in the past 12 years. For anyone who did something illegal, put them in jail regardless of party.
 
Last edited:


Lots of great irony in the clips on this page. Many, many Democrats defending slick willie from impeachment, who are now doing EXACTLY what they accused Republicans of doing back in the day. I've linked Chuckles' prophetic commentary. Follow the link for more delicious democrat double standards.
LINKY
 
Seattle Husker said:
This thread has become emblematic of the Trump Administration. It's devolved into crazy conspiracy theories, pithy insults and stereotypes.
Click to expand...

Getting you back to reality... The phone call. The problem you have is POTUS getting "dirt" on Biden?

If that's the case...., then he isn't allowed to seek investigations of wrong doing, or illegal acts, on anyone running for office? That makes no sense at all

If you're "dirty" then just run for POTUS. You're immune to investigations of any kind.... Giggity giggity!

What POTUS did, was doing his job
 
Horn2RunAgain said:
Getting you back to reality... The phone call. The problem you have is POTUS getting "dirt" on Biden?

If that's the case...., then he isn't allowed to seek investigations of wrong doing, or illegal acts, on anyone running for office? That makes no sense at all

If you're "dirty" then just run for POTUS. You're immune to investigations of any kind.... Giggity giggity!

What POTUS did, was doing his job
Click to expand...

I'd agree if he was generally concerned about corruption. You haven't seen me criticize Barr or Trump on the conversations with Australia about the genesis of the Russia probe. Altruism is grand although he didn't pursue general corruption in the call with Ukraine. He was only interested in 2 instances. In fact, the justice department isn't publicly known to be investigating Biden so who is? Trump's personal attorney, Guiliani. So the claim that he was simply being altruistic doesn't hold up to the known facts.
 
bystander said:
A long long time ago I posted very frequently on Arianna Huffington's website. It was called Ariannaonline. I was attacked by very vile Liberals because I happened to mention one day that I was in good shape and had worked out all my life. I was stunned. These same Liberals are still out there on another chat room and they are exact type that give Liberalism a bad name (and that's putting it lightly). They are full of hatred like you wouldn't believe. The same one later mocked the surfer girl who lost an arm to a shark because she said something about God saving her. These people are sick and they are the one's who will ensure four more years of Trump. Their arrogance is pathological.

Arianna eventually shut-down the chat-room; it was too toxic.
Click to expand...

So the libs were “I’m sexy and I know it” shaming you?

 
As a citizen, to me, what Joe Biden did for his son was abuse of power. I'm glad someone, even if it's Potus, is looking into it. To flippantly say the justice dept isn't looking into it doesn't answer the obvious.
 
Horn2RunAgain said:
As a citizen, to me, what Joe Biden did for his son was abuse of power. I'm glad someone, even if it's Potus, is looking into it. To flippantly say the justice dept isn't looking into it doesn't answer the obvious.
Click to expand...

What did he do for his son? Facts (and links preferably) please.

BTW, I think Hunter Biden profiting off his fathers role is abhorrent, no different than the Trump children. If you want to suggest legislation to prevent the children from profiting off their parents roles in government I might be able to support that depending on the specifics.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:


Lots of great irony in the clips on this page. Many, many Democrats defending slick willie from impeachment, who are now doing EXACTLY what they accused Republicans of doing back in the day. I've linked Chuckles' prophetic commentary. Follow the link for more delicious democrat double standards.
LINKY
Click to expand...


Lot's of hypocrisy on both sides in this latest impeachment inquiry. One could argue the roles have simply reversed.

I suspect the result will be the same. House recommends impeachment and sends it over to a Senate controlled by the POTUS' party who lets the matter die a quiet death.
 
Senator Chuck Grassley, Chair of the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus (who knew there was such a thing?), has come out in defense of the whistleblower.

"No one should be making judgments or pronouncements without hearing from the whistleblower first and carefully following up on the facts," he wrote. "Uninformed speculation wielded by politicians or media commentators as a partisan weapon is counterproductive and doesn't serve the country.
...
"When it comes to whether someone qualifies as a whistleblower, the distinctions being drawn between first- and second-hand knowledge aren't legal ones," Grassley said. "It's just not part of whistleblower protection law or any agency policy. Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim's credibility."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top