To conservatives: what would it take to impeach?

Of course there was. What are you talking about? The defense was that there was no unlawful obstruction of congress and no abuse of power, and even if there had been, they do not constitute impeachable offenses under the constitution.

There was certainly no claim that the "president is an unquestionable dictator." This kind if hyperbole I'm sure will appeal to the most ardent of Trump haters, but you have hopelessly marginalized yourselves with over the top rhetoric and sore losery.

 

There was a stamping of the feet, but no real argument based in any law or evidence.

I think it should be obvious for many reasons that the violation of a particular law is not the standard. And, if that is the defense, there is no defense.

There absolutely was the defense that if a president does it, it's not a crime.

Even so, there were multiple crimes. Bribery, and the illegal withholding of funds. Also, withholding of funds for personal gain.

 

I think you should write a formal letter of complaint.

 

Ridiculous. The argument was that an official act by a president with a foreign power that happens to politically benefit the president is not the kind of quid pro quo (the most overused and misunderstood Latin term ever) that is prohibited under the constitution, so long as the official honestly believe that his reelection is in the public interest. You are making it sound like he said the President has totally unlimited authority to do anything.

Dershowitz asserted Wednesday that “every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest.” Therefore, he continued, “if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” But tweeting Thursday, Dershowitz insisted that he “did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything to reassure his reelection, only that seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/alan-dershowitz-presidential-powers-109474


We can disagree with arguments. We may not honorable mischaracterize them.

 

Oh, I agree, there is nothing to be done in that sense. Nobody even expected any patriotism from any republicans. There was never a time when anyone thought the republicans would fight for their country. The overall point is that there is incredibly damning evidence that we have a corrupt president, just like venezuela, and there is no evidence the contrary.

The only question that remains is how many Americans are still Americans? How many of us are still patriots? How many of us think America is more important than sean hannity? I'll be honest, I'm pessimistic. There's only one (surprisingly) senator who believes in this country (or maybe it's just god which is scary). What's going to be left? Will this experiment end with trump?

 

So, that argument is actually valid. However, it cannot be applied in an honest way to this scenario. As applied to this scenario, it can only mean that a president can do anything they want all of the time.

 

There is no difference between Dershowitz's argument and mine, and neither of us have claimed that a "President can do anything he wants."

I will say that the Constitution doesn't seem to permit impeachment for such crimes as DWI, child neglect, shoplifting, shooting ducks out of season, trespassing, peeping tommery, illegal dumping, failing to file income tax returns, operating a nail salon without a license, leaving the scene of an accident, and even simple assault. Not my fault. I didn't write Article I.

This is funny, but did you know that a president cannot go to McDonalds by himself for a hamburger. I asked a secret service agent about this once. He said, "The President can of course go to McDonald's, but I'm going with him."

I said, "Not if he forbids it, you're not. You work for him, not the other way around. If he ORDERS you not follow him into McDonalds for his hamburger, you're not going in there."

He said, "Watch me."

 

So, a president can make decisions which benefit their election. For example, winning a war would benefit them. In this scenario however, it can be proven in a court of law that he wasn't concerned about corruption in ukraine, since he loudly and blatantly ignores corruption everywhere else. It can be shown that he wasn't concerned about corruption in this country because all testimony showed that he didn't even care about the actual investigation, just a statement about it. He also couldn't provide any testimony or evidence to the contrary, and did everything possible to prevent even asking the question.

On top of everything, withholding the aid in the first place was illegal and contrary to the interests of the United States.

So, in a lot of other ways as well, it would be sufficient evidence in court of law to show corrupt intent, and bribery. Never mind obstruction.

It's also important to note in line with your story that a president doesn't need to break a law(as dershowitz argued) to be impeached (even though he did). The classic example is to imagine a president who decided to stop showing up to anything and just play golf (not far from the truth but bear with me). Obviously they can be impeached even though they are breaking no laws.

A little lesson in how the government works. A fighter pilot doesn't own the jet they fly. They can loose their job and even be prosecuted for misusing it, and are ultimately responsible for making the final decisions in it's use. They don't own it. And can lose their job for many reasons that do not break the law per se.

This is America. The president doesn't own a thing. They work for the people, and can, and should be fired for abusing their position. That's why this is America.

 

I can give you many examples:

A president is caught extending his arm with hand straight exclaiming ‘hail hitler’ and caught laughing about torture of jews

President engages in a quid pro quo by demanding that a foreign government fabricate evidence and plant evidence to incriminate a political rival. He doesn’t merely ask a country to look into very corrupt like actions, he requests stuff is made up and fake evidence manufactured.

President wiretaps political campaigns to spy on their strategies

President orchestrates fraud in electoral system by altering vote count

President is caught saying n word, as president, and stating he supports kkk

there are many, many examples..


But merely asking a country we give billions to, to look into the very VERY VERY corrupt like actions of bidens?

 

There WASNT a Biden/Burshims connection. The Ukrainian government outright said that Hunter Biden was never a suspect or person of interest in any investigations by their Sptosecutor-Genersls office and that Victor Shokin, the former Prosecutor general was fired for bribery and for rigging investigations. He had been under investigation since 2012.

And yes there was a crime. Severa
L



1. Misuse of public funding.and Btibrry Trump used public funds in order to try to extort the President of Ukraine into making a fake investigation into the Bidens. This also constitutes bribery since Trump was promising the money in exchange for services. It could also be considered blackmail and extortion.

2 Conspiracy. This is a more general one. Trump had prior knowledge of all illrgel actions taken by his staff in trying to extort Ukraine.(according to numerous top staffers) That makes it felony conspiracy.

3 Abuse of power. In general using the authority of a public office to do anything that is not legal is a felony. Trump attempted to use the office of the President to extort s firiegn government into making false criminal accusations against a political opponent.


And he can still be charged. If he loses in 3020 he will likelyface charges for all the crimes he committed.

 

You need to look up the word felony. That's not what it means at all. And "anything that is not legal" means ... what?

 

Articles of impeachment with actual crimes listed would be a good start.

That would be what it would probably take to impeach. Try and get at least that done if you want a legit impeachment.

 

Abuse of power of a federal office is a frlony. Using a federal office or it's authority to perform illal actions is abuse of power. So by logic anything illegal done using a federal office becomes a felony.

 

Well that, and the fact that he is a lying, stealing scumbag, power abusing super narcissist whos cult following is beyond the pale.

 

It would've been helpful to their case if the Dems had mentioned some illegal actions in the articles of impeachment.

It was telling that they instead choose to go with the broad and meaningless "abuse of power", rather than listing the actual crimes. It's basically impossible to convict someone of a category of a crime, without a mention of the actual crime in the sub category.

That's probably a big part of why the impeachment failed so miserably.

Chin up, slugger. You'll knock it out of the park next time.

 

Yeah, but that defense was obliterated by the facts. I just want to say it's okay to admit the truth now. The impeachment is over. No point in pretending any more. 17 House witnesses and the Zelensky transcript prove Trump is guilty. I realize you're happy he got away with it, but you can drop the fake indignation.

 

So long as that "abuse" actually breaks a law, sure.
That didn't happen here.

 

Nope.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article217126395.html

 

Cite the law

 

Hitler improved the German economy too. Your point?

 

None needed which is why republicans were happy to go with a standard they didnt go with now. The founders werent as stupid as twump’s defense team.

 

Of course trumpsters are all too happy to alienate them and call them traitors as well as a whole host of other things.

 

To claim Trump committed a crime -- let alone, a felony -- it is necessary to cite the law(s) he supposedly violated.

 

Except he hasnt... he has made it much worse.

 

Impeachment and removal is the remedy for abuse of power. Just ask Lindsay Graham