Let's ask a fundamental question...

Well, I know it has some bite to it because I haven’t heard a peep from Hillary or Barrack in a very long time. I believe some of the people being subpoenaed and questioned by Durham are secretly telling members of the previous administration that “Your days are numbered. Be very careful with what you say, because Durham knows a lot.” Just a hunch.

 

He should be removed if a high crime or misdemeanor defined in the Constitution was committed. Given that there wasn't even an accusation of a high crime or misdemeanor in the articles, the whole thing should be tossed.

In addition, Democrats were talking about impeachment before Trump was nominated, at least as early as April 2016 ,,, which is rock solid evidence that the impeachment is at least as much of a hoax as Russian Collusion.

 

Ifs, ands and buts. That's all you left-wingers are left with.

Get over it!

 

Thanks for the tip...but I think I'll wait for the report. There was also a lot of build up for the Horowitz Report, which turned out to be a big nothing burger. Some mistakes...but no intent or giant Deep State conspiracy. Try again. Similar to Benghazi.

 

Thank you. That was the question.

A followup: if a President who commits impeachable crimes should be removed, as we have established, shouldn't we make absolutely sure that they haven't?

So you didn't mean "impeach". Just "destroy". Since I have no idea what that even means, I'll leave it at that.

Oh. You mean that everyone who understood that Trump was committing impeachable offenses since his first day in office believed that he would be impeached if Democrats came to power.

I don't know anybody who "knew" or even wanted Trump to be impeached at that point. So I'm convinced you're making it up.

This was a post I wrote in April, 2017
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ump-from-office.502872/page-2#post-1067372099

 

The Horowitz report was just that, a report. Durham’s investigation became criminal about 4 months ago which opens the door for Grand Jury subpoenas, search warrants, sworn depositions, international investigations, foreign sworn depositions etc. Durham has already visited and investigated in 4 different countries and sequestered additional investigators to help with the case. I honestly think this will be bigger than anyone imagined.

On a side note the same procedure is happening in the Jussie Smollett case. The DOJ has subpoenaed his phone and email records for the last year. I believe that both Smollett and DA Kim Foxx will be under much heat here real soon. And we can’t forget about the letter that was sent via USPS with a hate message. The new non corrupt FBI is still holding on to that one.

 

Obstruction of Justice is a High Crime. It's also a crime. As is conspiring with a foreign person to affect our elections.

Wow! I don't know any of them, but they show great foresight. We could use such talent. Maybe we should get them into power.

Don't bother.... this is sarcasm because your statement is as irrelevant as it is nonsensical.

 

I lived long, long ago in the Chicago suburbs...Mayor Daley's days. Every state wide election was a contest on who could hold their ballot boxes out the longest...the downstate Republicans or the Chicago Democrats. Daley apparently got JFK elected in a year where the Chicagoans held out longer, but I doubt either Smollett or Foxx are national issues.

 

If there were clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt that a 2/3 majority of the WHOLE population of US citizens
could recognize

Yet the Senate 2/3 majority AND the presiding Chief Justice of SCOTUS chose to ignore or nullify such evidence on purely political partisan rationale

then this could cause an unprecedented Constitutional crisis that would possibly require an emergency “convention of states” and or the other 8 SCOTUS judges to attempt to in some way nullify the verdict based on logic, reason and legal precedent

The other alternatives

1, Accept that there is corruption in the highest echelon of the government and that maybe next election “our side” will get back in power and “fix” this travesty of justice
2. States vote to secede from the USA at the Convention of States
3. Flee the USA to seek asylum in some less corrupt country that has avoided war for 500 years... like Switzerland

 

Yes. Good point. It's the only fair standard. That's the threshold to remove a President. But if the Senate Majority decides to make the threshold impossible to achieve by hiding the evidence, they will tarnish the process, tarnish this Presidency and tarnish the Constitution.

In reality, the Senate the majority has already made it clear that they will protect Trump. So the best we can hope for is for as much evidence as possible to come out so that a large portion of those 2/3 have an opportunity to decide their vote in November based on whatever becomes available.

No doubt Trump will still attempt to cheat his way into re-electing himself. And he would have the chances on his side to be successful. The only hope is not secession or running to another country. It's to work to get a collusion-proof majority at the ballot box. Highly difficult to achieve, but we must try.

 

When I kept insisting that the impeachment should be fair, the standard response was that the house had the sole power to impeach. Well, the senate has the sole power to perform a trial. TT.

The real trial will take place in November with a jury of millions and it will not take a 2/3 majority to remove him.

 

The impeachment was fair. So should the trial. Even more so given that they will decide if a President has committed crimes that result in his removal, or that a President who has been found guilty by the House of Representatives should remain in power. Very delicate. There is no higher instance.

It won't if Trump actually is guilty of cheating to sabotage the electoral process and perpetuate himself in power.

 

They did not allow witnesses that the defense wanted. That is not fair.

Lots of ifs.

 

It depends on the crime. It was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bill Clinton was guilty of crime. Should he have been removed?

 

That is false. You're drinking the Trump loyalist kool-aid.

Republicans got the witnesses they wanted that were relevant to the impeachment investigation. Not the Democrat's fault that those witnesses hurt Trump's case more than they helped it.

 

Did you read the post? The case is outlined.

Who's Bill Clinton?

 

The key words are they got the witnesses "that were relevant to the investigation". B ut those that that democrats judged to be relevant. The democrats had already prejudged the whole thing.

 

Answer the question. Should he have been removed? Or, as I said, does it depend on the crime?

 

The key words are "that the Republicans requested". Did Republicans request witnesses that would hurt Trump? How would Democrats know that they would hurt Trump before they appeared?

You make no sense...

In any case, you haven't answered the question this thread asks. So any attempt to change the subject of this thread on your part is an evasion.

I won't go along...

 

Mueller proved ZERO...

Ukraine = NOTHING.

Wet dreams, you are having. Wake up.

 

Yes. It does depend on the crime. It should be a consequential crime. Like abusing power to perpetuate themselves in power. As Trump did. Or lying under oath for personal gain at the expense of The People. Or a lie that puts national security in jeopardy. These last two are hypothetical.

Having said that, yes... Clinton should have been removed. But not for lying under oath. That's inconsequential. For sexual harassment in the workplace. Just like Justice Thomas should never have been appointed for the same reason.

Full disclosure, though: I never have been a Clinton fan. I was more an Al Gore fan. But that's not why I say the above.

Now... the OP outlines the crime. What's your answer?

 

Schiff did not allow all the witnesses the republicans asked for.

 

I think the Ukrainians should reopen the investigation of Burisma. Surely, if the situation were in reverse, the Democrats would demand it. The tie to Trump's request and the foreign aid should not have happened. I think it is worthy of exposure and rebuke, but not impeachment. Politics is rough and tumble, and all kinds of shenanigans go on. The Russian collusion hoax, perpetrated by paid Clinton operatives, is a good example of that.

Do you think the Democratic House would have impeached Barack Obama if he had done exactly what Trump did? I've asked that question before, and all I get is that Obama wouldn't have done it and "Don't ask hypotheticals". But I think it's a relevant question because it strikes at the legitimacy of this impeachment. So would they?

 

another hypothetical - what if trump had lied under oath as clinton did? How fast would he have been impeached? Yet the democrats, including nadler and pelosi, back then thought it was a travesty.

 

Exactly. I've said this before on other threads, but I'll say it again. If we ever have a president that needs to be impeached and removed, we'll know it. The people, the Republicans, and the Democrats will know it.

The old saying ... "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... we'll know we need an impeachment."

That is not the case here.