What Is The Difference Between Impeachment For Trump, Versus Previous Presidents?

the "Impoundment Control Act" does not forbid the president from withholding funds appropriated by congress. It puts limits on and requirements for withholding funds. It is not against the law and certainly not in the constitution for a politician to get help from a foreign national in an election. They are prohibited from getting help for money, like for instance paying for a dossier, under the FEC laws and regulations. Trump never publicly asked Russia, China or Ukraine to get involved in any election. That is all dreamworld stuff.

 

You understand you have no credibility after making factually inaccurate statements like that, right?

 

Gosh, why do you make such nonsensical claims?

Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton both faced impeachment over obstruction of justice
https://abcnews.go.com/US/richard-n...achment-obstruction-justice/story?id=47460022

 

Obama did not love America. When he was adjunct professor he taught all that he thought was wrong with our constitution. 2. One doesn't start out to "fundamentally change" something you love. 3. Obama spent his first year running around the world apologizing for America being great and promised foreigners that he would cut us down to size.

Have the Democrats even hinted or whispered about all of the incredible good things for the country Trump has accomplished? ANS: No. They just define good things as bad things.

 

You said what laws did the President Break the Democrats don't tell you. I said this is what the Democrats claim whether one chooses to accept it or not they are based on laws that exist. I did not say that was my belief or that I wished to debate the details only that this is what legal claims the Democrats were making. Perhaps I should have made myself clearer.

Earlier you stated that Biden had committed a crime, I am still wondering what that crime was.

 

I don't think you can compare impeachments. Andrew Johnson's impeachment, it was members of his own party that wanted him gone. Not the Democrats. All 9 Democratic senators voted not guilty, Republican senators voted 35-10 guilty/not guilty.

Nixon wasn't impeached, he resigned prior to being impeached. The judiciary committee in the house did pass the articles of impeachment against Nixon, they passed 27-11. All 21 Democrats on the committee voted for the articles, 6 Republicans joined the 21 Democrats voting yea on the articles while the remaining 11 Republican's voted no. According Goldwater there were at least 9 Republican senators out of 42 that would vote guilty if Nixon's impeachment came to a trial in the senate thus guaranteeing 2/3rds guilty verdict. Having a third of all Republicans favoring impeachment and removal along with close to 60% of independents, impeachment and removal was a done deal if it came to a trial.

Bill Clinton's impeachment was a one party affair, very partisan from the get go just like Trump's. Republicans came down for impeachment and removal 68-31, democrats against 4-94 and independents against 31-63. Bill's impeachment was strictly partisan.

Trump's follows pretty much along the same partisan lines as Bill Clinton's. Democrats 84-10 in favor of impeachment and removal, Republicans against 8-89, a plurality of independents against 43-46.

There's no doubt about the partisanship between the major parties with Bill Clinton's and Trump's. The big difference between the two is independents. By a wide margin independents didn't want Bill impeachment and removed. In fact Bill's job approval numbers rose during his impeachment process and trial from 50% to 65% overall. Independents are split on Trump. The increase of independents in favor of impeachment and removal of Trump over Bill Clinton I think is more based on independents not liking Trump, the individual, the man. They don't like him personally because of his obnoxious personality and uncouth, in your face persona. Whereas they really liked Bill the individual, the person.

 

In all but Soviet style kangaroo courts defendants are always allowed to defend themselves. In Soviet style courts they are not because the defendant has already been deemed guilty by the authorities so any defense is declared "irrelevant."

 

I can add a number 3.

3. Other president were impeached for an actual reason.

 

Show us with real proof not your opinion.

 

Why go to the old USSR for evidence when there is plenty in the good ol' USA?

 

Actually Trump's impeachment is about the same as Andrew Johnson's.

 

It's incredibly disheartening to see right wing extremists make this baseless claims.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/politics/fact-check-apology-tour/index.html

 

Because they are not nonsnnse. They are factual per the statute. You might try reading it sometime.

Clinton's charge of obstruction of justice was bona fide stemming from his suborning witnesses. Nixon's charge was false for the same reason Trump's is; it was mostly obstruction of congress which is not illegal under any statute.

 

Sorry I confused you with the Democrats. So it is the Democrats who should bone up on the law, but that will never happen. They are completely happy and satisfied accusing Trump of whatever illegality they dream up. (Next might be putting ketchup on steaks.)

I have said that there is reasonable suspicion that Joe Biden committed a crime worthy of an investigation. The reasonable suspicion is his admitted quid pro quo on video, but, by itself, is not proof. I never said anything like that about Hunter Biden.

 

Minor correction: IIRC Johnson was a Democrat selected purposefully by Lincoln..

 

Pretty much true. Johnson was set up by the hateful Republicans who wanted no southern Democrat anywhere in sight.

 

Oh, because CNN and Fact-Check say so??????

 

Not as much as seeing CNN used as a source....

 

Nah, the case against Trump is non-existent.

 

I am a former Republican now a Democrat, but that doesn't mean I agree with what the Democrats claim here. What I am interested in having shown is did President engage a foreign power in looking into the Bidens for political gain or did he want an investigation into corruption. A simple conclusion many people on both sides wish to avoid, it is the crux of the matter isn't it?

 

If the President was investigating Joe Schmo who wasn't running for office, would it be a crime? Does running for office insulate one from being investigated for possible corruption? It seems to me that accusing Trump of election meddling is conjecture. It is akin to the common leftist tactic of accusing a white police officer of racism simply because the guy he arrested was black. Or the rash conclusion that the over representation of blacks in prison is a clear indication that our entire system of justice is racist. This of course ignores the obvious shameful possibility that blacks simply commit more crimes.

 

LOL! Freudian slip much?

 

Untrue. obozo claimed Executive Privilege to cover for himself & holder's for the blood on their hands for Fast & Furious & the resulting murders.The Court struck the claim down because the DoJ IG had released some info in a report. To this day, the requested docs have not been turned over to Congress. The Courts will strike down the Privilege claim anytime the supposedly covered docs / conversations are discussed publicly.

 

IOW, your mind is made up.........don't confuse you with the facts. Got it.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ast-and-furious-what-you-need-to-know/258783/