Let's ask a fundamental question...

Hmmm... I wonder why a guy with a gun to his head would say ... "no no no.... I don't have a gun to my head".

We miss ya when you're away for so long. We can always count on you to inspire us to write the funniest posts!

Right! Screw the Fourth Amendment.

Probable cause... Schmabable cause.

 

reagan did it... iran-contra, read up on it? Was he impeached? Back then people were principled..

Trump should’ve just stated ‘yes, i asked Ukraine to investigate biden, SO WHAT? Biden is not above the law and can’t hide just because he is my rival’

 

That's not an answer. The OP specifies the crime. And this is the third time I have told you this.

I don't know what questions you claim I haven't answered. Sounds a lot like projection. But, in any case, if you want to ask a question, open a thread. The question for this one is taken.

 

Yeah, I've heard that bs answer before - "Open a thread."

This is what happens when I ask a poster questions that they are uncomfortable with.

I gave you an answer. The Clinton impeachment is the standard by which my answer is given. It depends on the crime, for surely, Clinton committed crimes, but it mattered what the crime was and why it was committed.

My question to you is on topic. It strikes directly at the legitimacy of these impeachment charges. Would the Democratic House have impeached President Obama if he had done exactly the same thing? If not, these charges against Trump lack legitimacy.

When a president needs to be removed from office through impeachment, it will look like a duck, quack like a duck, and walk like a duck, and Republicans and Democrats will agree that it must be done. But on this impeachment, not even all Democrats agree that it's necessary, and no Republicans agree.

I answered your question. Please answer mine.

Seth

 

That's what I said.

Neither do I. Not under McConnell, at least.

But I do demand it. From both parties. Trump loyalists apparently don't. And it's alarming how low one of our major political parties has fallen because they don't feel their supporters demanding any sort of patriotism from them.

Being biased has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with failing to be fair. And that's your and the Republicans' mistake. Anybody who places country before partisanship wants the evidence that would determine if the President abuses power or not to be made available, and to be the only basis for voting in an impeachment trial.

 

I absolutely get it. Your response is that you don't care if your idol breaks the law and wipes his ass with the Constitution because.... well... because he's your idol.

So noted!

 

Who is Reagan?

I'm talking about Trump!

Biden, Hillary, Reagan, ... You don't care who you bring up, so long as you can change the subject away from the criminal in the WH.

 

Actually most of the deaf, blind and dumb do know that! The intelligent not so much.

 

I see. So I'm not the first one to point out to you that derailing threads other people open is not polite.

And I gave you the crime. So you refuse to answer.

I have no idea but I can tell you this: if Obama had done even a small portion of the things Trump has done, and there was even a portion of the evidence, including the Mueller Report, testimonies, documents, his own public testimony and the public confessions to obstruction ... I would have demanded that they do.

Now... answer my question with the crime as described on the OP and stop the contortions to avoid responding.

 

yes, Trump asked Ukraine to investigate possible corruption with Biden. SO WHAT???

 

No, your not the first one. The last one was Sandy Shanks. Sandy defines "refusing to answer" as what I would define as simply disagreeing with him and challenging him with pointed questions. Then he tells me to start my own thread.

You didn't specify a crime in your OP. I just reread it. You asked a more generic question: "If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump is guilty of a crime, should he be removed?"

I answered you truthfully. It depends on the crime, citing the Clinton case.

I answered your question.

I believe that the House Democrats would never have impeached Obama if Obama had done the exact same thing. Never.

They would be claiming that the public had a right to know the full extent of Trump's corruption in Ukraine. You know it, and I know it.

This being the case, I just can't believe in the legitimacy of this impeachment.

Best thing to do is to let the people decide in 10 short months.

Seth

 

No he didn't! He asked the President of Ukraine to publicly say that he was investigating Biden.

Trump couldn't care less if he actually carried out the investigation or not. I see you are not following any of this.

 

Her! And I can see her point. Because you have refused to answer my question and just piggyback on the thread meant for you to answer that question.

[From the OP]
Let's say a recording is made public of a call in which he demands from Zelinski that he make a public statement saying that he's investigating Biden. And then lets him know that he's only interested in the statement, not in the investigation. ​

Now... no more excuses.

 

So this is a hypothetical scenario?

 

Even less of an impeachable act.

quid pro quo IS NOT A CRIME, it's simply means 'this for that'. You need to prove there was extortion, conspiracy against U.S., bribery, campaign finance violations, good luck with that because guess what, not even CONGRESS could charge him with any of it. Instead, what was it, abuse of power?

this was dead on arrival, you all are so desperate and scared of Trump winning again! you just want him out! Well, now that you have seriously cheapened impeachment, after Trump wins in 2020, any impeachment articles will mean ZERO, it's now a joke. good job!

 

No, Sandy is a "him".

 

Bias has nothing to do with it, hmm. You have almost all Democrats considering Trump guilty before the trial begins. I'm talking almost all 47 Democratic senators. It doesn't matter what the witnesses say, what evidence is provided. Even if that shows Trump didn't commit a impeachable and removable offense. They're going to vote guilty. Maybe a Manchin or perhaps a Jones might not. On the other side is Collins and Murkowski who could vote guilty. That leaves 96 senators who have already pre-judged Trump, who have either convicted him or exonerate him before the trial begins. Why have it, just vote and let's get this thing done with.

I hope you don't try to tell me those democratic senators haven't made up their minds yet. They have. At least 45 of the 47 don't care anything about evidence or witnesses. Same for 50-51 of 53 GOP senators. You seem perfectly okay with the democratic controlled house stacking the deck to ensure the articles of impeachment pass. But think the GOP stacking the deck in the senate is totally wrong.

Something in that thinking is very amiss. It's the old, "It's okay if my side does it, but terribly wrong, unfair, perhaps even evil if the other side does the same thing." There's been nothing fair about this since its beginning. Call it being bias, call it partisanship or just normal major political party gamesmanship. What we have here is being about as far from being fair, honest, equal if you will as one can get. From both sides of the aisle.

this is exactly what happens when both parties put party and their political aims and goals above the country's. Democrats being patriotic to their party, Republicans to their party, the country be danged. It's loyalty to political party, not the nation. Both parties can go to Hades in a hand basket, this country would be far better off if that happened. You party animals battle this out. My advice, don't go getting upset when the other party does the same things your party just did. After all, whats good and fair to the gander is good and fair to the goose. That is unless you're a Democrat or a Republican. I'd might have more sympathy for your cause if the democrats in the house hadn't jury rigged the results they wanted. So I don't get upset when the GOP does the same in the senate. You shouldn't either since your party did it first. The other party is just following the precedence your party set. Kind of like the use of the nuclear option.

 

The Mueller report alone would've buried any other President. How Trump skated after the Russia probe (plus the 37 indicted from it) gives one reason to question what really happened behind closed doors to turn Mueller, an agent with impeccable credentials, into a spineless weasel.

 

Putting aside the mountain of evidence...the best proof we have is the best proof one can ask for => The ongoing efforts by the accused to cover it up & obstruct a thorough investigation.

Innocent people don't do that.

 

Oh no, they answered your question. You just didn't like the answers and refused to admit that they were answers.

Sure. That would prove that he wanted to influence the election using a foreign country. So yes, that would be something I would support impeachment on.

What would be "definitive" to you? If there is even SLIGHT, I mean the slightest of the slight possibility of a doubt...are you going to use it to not apologize?

 

Are you are claiming one criminal enterprise justifies another. The full extent of the Iran/Contra scandal didn’t come out until Bush was in office. As the prison sentences started to stack up, Bush pardoned everyone involved, essentially killing off a full accounting.

It is like there is s criminal gang that follows Republican presidents around.

 

So, you cannot make this as simply baked as this. The standard is high crimes and misdemeanors, in the context in which it was envisioned by the framers. I think that it is very straightforward to understand that those are the kinds of offenses that could be considered by the congress. So any crime doesn't conform, nor should it. So, house democrats failed to quantify a crime, and created an offense that offended them, not the nation. That seems more a crime than anything asserted about what Trump may or may not have done. So, why should anyone entertain what the left is doing now, and why should the Senate waste it's time on the histrionics of what ms Pelosi has done?

 

Sorta. Only the specific evidence cited is hypothetical. Testimonial, documentary and circumstantial evidence exists. Can you answer?

It shouldn't be this hard for any patriotic American to answer.

 

It has a lot to do with the way Democrats view Republicans. The Mueller report is a good example. Members of Trump’s campaign met with Russian operatives hundreds of times. The investigation went nowhere because everyone involved either lied about it or refused to talk. The White House obstructed the investigation at every step.

All the while, Trump and his friends at FOX were going on with their usual disinformation campaign. Fake news, fake news.

When the report came out Barr gave a misleading report which allowed Trump and his fawners to jump around and pretend Trump was exonerated, even though he clearly was not.

It is just another example of conservatives latching onto a narrative that is at odds with reality. It is quite obvious that Trump was equally up to no good in his interactions with the President of the Ukraine. Yet the spin machine spun the conservative mind into believing things happened other than they did.

The Democrats keep thinking that if they just lay out the evidence, show for all to see, the corruption that is Donald Trump, that conservatives would see how utterly corrupt Donald Trump is.

The problem they are having is that you can’t make someone see what they don’t want to see.

 

Obama was not as corrupt as Trump. He would have never done such a thing. It is like there is a cloud of criminality that follows around Republican presidents. It is why so many of their underlings end up in prison. From Nixon to Reagan to Bush to Trump. Compare them to Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama. The Republican side of the government is clearly the more corrupt. Just look at the voter suppression they practice in red muck states.

Clinton lied about getting a blow job. Trump lies about everything. Clinton never tried to entice foreign governments to interfere in our elections as Trump has.