America Needs A Fully Good Resolution To These Impeachment Legal Issues!

Presidents have been skirting the edges of their Constitutional power for decades and Congress has been allowing this - and since 9/11 have given even more authority to the Executive Branch. It’s good to see Congress finally stand up and take a stand against trend.

 

Cogent analysis of the logic and factual legalities of the impeachment inquiry and your bottom conclusion is spot on. The dichotomy is that logic and factual legalities have no relevance to what is going on in the House.

 

Here is an easy hoop, cite your evidence of a quid pro quo. Don't waste your time, because you cannot cite any proof, all there has ever been is conjecture and opinion.

 

What abuse of power do you claim has Trump committed?

 

You sound like Amb. Sondland, he too was convinced with 100% certainty, and all he had was his own conjecture and presumptions.

The entire time Sondland convinced himself of his own presumptions, he had never asked Trump if his presumptions were true. When he finally did ask Trump, he was told there were no conditions on the aid. Sondland's presumptions were shattered.

Trump never asked Zelensky to make a public statement about investigating Biden or else Trump would continue to withhold aid.

Just like with Trump-Russia collusion, you and everyone like you, just imagined it must be so, and convinced yourselves it was true. Presumptions, rumor, gossip, conspiracy theories and conjecture are not proof of anything but a quisling mind.

 

If that's the case, why did they spend so much time looking for a high crime that never existed? An impeachment without a high crime is like an ice cream cone without ice cream, it just gets crumbled and tossed out.

That's what the Senate needs to with it when it gets to them, just toss it out. Only then will the constitutional process be restored and the President given his rightful claim to a full term.

 

"May very well"? Is that the new standard of proof? LOL...really?

 

It is what it is.

 

Obviously you cannot see it...but then again, you apparently are one of those people who Trump mentioned he would not lose if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue.

This is fun.

 

Hey, for someone Trump said he would not lose if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue...the shake-down of Zelensky has to be invisible to you.

No problemo!

 

No proof will ever get him convicted in the Senate. The cowards there will never do it.

He was extorting the new Ukrainian president.

 

As you said....He "may very well have". Obviously, that is good enough for you!! No standard of proof necessary!

 

He may very well have.

The proof may exist...but I doubt we will ever hear it.

And, as I said, it won't make any difference to people who would not be disturbed if Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue.

 

If "he very well may have" is all that you have.....you literally have NOTHING. What about that is so difficult for you to understand?

ie. Obama very well may have directed the IRS to block tax exempt status for Tea Party Groups. That means my assertion has no proof. Strong suspicion alone doesnt count for anything.

 

If you KNOW for certain whether he did or not...tell us about it...and how you KNOW.

Otherwise offer your opinion...as I did.

Now...get the hell off my back about offering an opinion.

 

You are confused. My entire point about Obama is that nobody knows for certain. Nobody knows Trumps motives for certain either, hence your use of the expression "he very well may have". I made my point a long time ago. There is no need for us to continue making multiple posts on this very short and simpleton topic. Lets end this.

 

Red herring.

you are a broken record. Opinion is not evidence. you and your Democrat clowns in the house have NOTHING, nothing but opinion. Geez, such a waste of time.

You people never have anything substantive to add. Just as your Democrat pals in the US House of Representatives never have any factual evidence to add.

 

Not a red herring at all.

And calm down...you're gonna blow a fuse. This is just a discussion.

I am not a Democrat...so you seem to be phrasing your comments inappropriately.

There is plenty of evidence. If you refuse to see it...no problem. But claiming there is no evidence is absurd.

 

Sorry, but your comments sound foolish, and i have trouble suffering fools.

There is zero evidence whatsoever.

We have the transcript of the phone call - no quid pro quo.

We have LtCol Vindman's testimony, where he says there was no bribery, no quid pro quo, nor talk of aid, and obviously no talk of conditions being tied to aid during the phone call.

Trump says there was no quid pro quo.

Zelensky has said numerous times that there was no quid pro quo.

There was no public announcement by Ukraine that they were starting an investigation into Biden, there was no investigation.

Democrats using conjecture to assume Trump must have been trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent is not a substitute for evidence.

Democrats calling Trump and Zelensky liars does not create evidence.

Pelosi now claiming that Trump holding up aid to Ukraine was done to help Russia, is also not evidence, it's opinion

There is not plenty of evidence, there literally is ZERO evidence.

 

Yet all you have is hearsay and assumptions. Are you one of those the dem clown show has convinced that assumptions are better than direct evidence? It appears so.

 

Well then, obviously you sue the ice-cream manufacturer for the high crime of giving you frostbite.

 

Jim, even if the aid to Ukraine was withheld because President Trump wanted an investigation into the Bidens, Burisma, etc, it is not extortion. "Extortion" is the taking of money or property from another under some kind of threat. What gets forgotten in this whole discussion is that the aid to Ukraine was our money. Ukraine did not own our money. This aid should be considered as being a gift from the U.S. to Ukraine, not money owned by Ukraine. In essence, it is impossible to extort a person by withholding a gift. You can only extort somebody when you force them to give you money or property that belongs to them.

Clearly, it is not illegal to try to influence a country to behave a certain way through the giving or withholding of foreign aid. Here's a perfect example ...

Pakistan shelters Al Qaeda and the taliban in its northern territories. The Pakistanis do this deliberately, as they see them as a buffer in the event of a war with India. They sheltered Osama bin Laden until the SEALs went in and killed him. They are most likely sheltering Ayman Zawahiri, the leader of Al Qaeda. They imprisoned the physician who helped the U.S. find bin Laden. Ever since 9/11 the U.S. has tried to persuade the Pakistani government to crack down on the islamic jihadists that rule northern Pakistan, and they have never done it. President Trump threatened to end foreign aid to Pakistan and then basically said "enough is enough" and cancelled foreign aid to Pakistan. Nobody, not even the Democrats, wanted to call that extortion or impeach him for it. It was perfectly legitimate.

If you want to take the time, here is some reading on what extortion is.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/extortion

President Trump did not "extort" Ukraine. He may have used the foreign aid to persuade them to do something, but there is no crime in this.

Edit: Hell, Joe Biden bragged about withholding aid to Ukraine until they did what he wanted them to do. You don't see the Democrats calling that extortion, do you?

 

So you cite a litany of evidence and end the list with "...there literally is ZERO evidence."

Okay.

Maybe you were just trying to be funny.

If so...it worked. I laughed out-loud.

 

There is enough evidence that most prosecutors commenting on it indicate that they would gladly bring a case against anyone and expect a conviction.

Trump will almost certainly not be convicted...but not because of a lack of evidence. Rather it will be because of a lack of spine from the Republican senators.

 

Too much. They cannot deny more than a couple facts at a time.