Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

Repeating yourself does not address the challenge put to you.
NONE of the actions taken here are, inherently, abuses of power; if you believe otherwise, you must demonstrate how.

 

I directly addressed the challenge.

I did. You can’t solicit a foreign government, as president, to help defeat a domestic political rival by withholding congressionally approved funds. That is an abuse of power. Had he gone about it differently, by having the attorney general ask them to coordinate an international investigation, he would have been fine. But he chose to abuse his power, and was subsequently impeached for it.

 

You can, because:

- A person running against an incumbent White House is not immune from federal investigation for actions he took while an elected federal official - thus, initiating, ordering, assisting, or otherwise furthering such an investigation is not inherently an abuse of power.

- Applying conditions to the disbursement of federal monies or assets to foreign state is not inherently an abuse of power.

- Participation in the former as the condition mentioned in the later is not inherently an abuse of power.

None of these actions are inherently an abuse of power.

So.. where's the abuse?

 

No, you can’t. Your assertions have no bearing on reality. I’ve shown you the abuse of power, twice now. It’s why he has been impeached.

 

Since you refuse to demonstrate how actions that are not inherent abuses of power are, actually, abuses of power, I accept your concession of the point.

 

This game you play of pretending someone didn’t directly address and refute your claim is pathetic.

I clearly showed you the abuse of power trump committed. It’s why he was impeached. Since you can’t rebut the facts that I’ve laid out, I accept your concession.

 

Is this not why we have courts? To determine guilt?

 

Reminds me of the joke about the three blind men trying to work out what an elephant was by feel

 

This is a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. His being a Harvard law professor doesn't make his opinion automatically correct.

 

They don't seem to care about the laws. Well, a lot of them don't.

 

No, but it sures gives him more standing.

 

His post bears repetition because you can't grasp it using a Trump level mentality. He clearly answered your question

 

Yet you just expressed an opinion about it, (which was largely unrelated to what I said in any case)

 

Ah, so he understands better than a typical democrat. Thanks for admitting that.

 

Are you kidding? Trump hurls insults and viscious vindictive comments at the Democrats in his tweets. This is his way of showing off his intellect.

 

On the contrary, ALL of them are crimes IF THE PRESIDENT PROFITS FROM THEM, and it doesn't really matter if the profit is large or small or even intentional. The only defense he can offer is that this was the ONLY way this could have been done, and that is not so, as the President could have gone through "normal channels"; but then he wouldn't have been able to pressure Zelensky to come up with "dirt" on Biden, even if he had to make it up, would he?

The abuse is in the President profiting personally due to his position, that is a clear abuse of power, You knew that of course.

 

I know, democrats are not used to any republican hitting back from their lies and taunts. To be expected.

 

Ah yes he's quite a statesman crude, ugly, vindictive, vengeful truthless bizarre and other worldly...oh and impeached

 

Well, you must forgive the democrats for that because they know not what they do.

 

Are you referring to "he" as being democrats. This is what I call Trump poisoning a serious disease of Trump-a-holics whose posts have deteriorated to the point of pure gibberish.

What I said: Ah yes he's quite a statesman crude, ugly, vindictive, vengeful truthless bizarre and other worldly

 

The DP impeachment vote is just another phony fundraising tool. The DP party bosses have nullified the impeachment vote.
I supposed Democrats are used to that sort of thing by now. They all know the bosses rig their own primary elections.

 

I have not said anything wrong - you are making up gibberish - attributing it to me - and claiming I am wrong on that basis.

The only thing breathtaking here is your ability to engage in strawman fallacy.

 

Always a mistake.

 

What does that have to do with - the Rule of Law principles "people should not be wrongfully charged"

What are you saying here - that we should allow our justice system to charge people willy nilly - "because we have courts that will right that wrong" ?