White House discussing whether to argue that Trump wasn't officially Impeached due to Pelosi not sending the articles to the Senate

[DunDunDunpachi]

The difference is semantic in my opinion. The vote has been held and, like an indictment, once it's set in motion it will eventually be "served".

The difference is semantics because it's all showboating anyway. This is how Democrats will crawl on their bellies for the sake of jabbing at Trump.

Pelosi just rammed through the fastest impeachment hearing in American history and now she wants to slow roll it? Sorry, chump, but you're selling me a bad bill of goods. I'm not an idiot.

 

[Ornlu]

I'm very curious as to the Constitutionality of Impeachment Articles if they are not delivered by the end of the terms of the current House members. So the president got Articles of Impeachment from the 2018 House...if they're never delivered, would the 2020 House be required to hold another vote? Or would the 2020 House have to deliver Articles voted on by the 2018 House?


It's kind of a weird scenario, but it's interesting.

 

[cryptoadam]

I'm very curious as to the Constitutionality of Impeachment Articles if they are not delivered by the end of the terms of the current House members. So the president got Articles of Impeachment from the 2018 House...if they're never delivered, would the 2020 House be required to hold another vote? Or would the 2020 House have to deliver Articles voted on by the 2018 House?


It's kind of a weird scenario, but it's interesting.

Yes I am curious as well. And can they hold onto the articles indefinatly ? Lets say they keep the house in 2020 but don't take the senate, can they wait till 2022 or 2024 until they have a majority in the Senate and then send them?

 

[CeroFrio996]

Sorry, chump, but you're selling me a bad bill of goods. I'm not an idiot.

If that's aimed at Pelosi I agree with you. She has a job to do, and she wants her cake and to eat it too.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

If that's aimed at Pelosi I agree with you. She has a job to do, and she wants her cake and to eat it too.

Sorry for not making that clearer.

 

[Ornlu]

Yes I am curious as well. And can they hold onto the articles indefinatly ? Lets say they keep the house in 2020 but don't take the senate, can they wait till 2022 or 2024 until they have a majority in the Senate and then send them?

So say you sat on a seven member board somewhere, basically any voting body. If you voted to approve some program, but never submitted your proposal to whomever you answer to in your organization. Then 2 members have their term end, and are replaced with 2 new members, who have no desire to see the proposal submitted. In a normal board, there would have to be another vote, as the former voting body doesn't exist anymore, and thus cannot submit the proposal.

It should be the same with the House, as every 2 years, you have an entirely different House (yes, many members are re-elected). In other words say if the House voted on something the day before new House members were sworn in, and failed to bring it to the Senate/President...it would seem to me that they would be forced to hold a second vote on the issue with the new members of the House.

It's a weird question, but I'd love to hear the Constitutional argument for/against.

 

[zeorhymer]

The difference is semantic in my opinion. The vote has been held and, like an indictment, once it's set in motion it will eventually be "served".

Assume that he's been served, what are his crimes? This will be the first time anyone has been charged without a crime.

 

[cryptoadam]

So say you sat on a seven member board somewhere, basically any voting body. If you voted to approve some program, but never submitted your proposal to whomever you answer to in your organization. Then 2 members have their term end, and are replaced with 2 new members, who have no desire to see the proposal submitted. In a normal board, there would have to be another vote, as the former voting body doesn't exist anymore, and thus cannot submit the proposal.

It should be the same with the House, as every 2 years, you have an entirely different House (yes, many members are re-elected). In other words say if the House voted on something the day before new House members were sworn in, and failed to bring it to the Senate/President...it would seem to me that they would be forced to hold a second vote on the issue with the new members of the House.

It's a weird question, but I'd love to hear the Constitutional argument for/against.

I would assume that they would have to hold a revote ??? if Dems still controlled the house it would probably go quickly but if R's took the lead then maybe they could vote it down ??

But talking out my ass since I am not an constitutional expert. I think Pelosi is holding off because of the holidays and doesn't want any quotes from the senate dominating the media. Also I truely think she thinks she has some sort of leverage and that the public will some how overwhelmingly turn on the Senate and essentially put the House in power over the Senate on their vote. But thats probably because she has been hanging out on REEEEEE to much LOL.

 

[dolabla]

We have the best functional retards, don't we folks!

 

[autoduelist]

For those who watched the impeachment, the argument was made by this guy:

Harsh condemnation when one of your own star witnesses undercuts the whole thing.

Oh wow, i assumed it was the guy who testified the Dems were the ones committing abuse of power. I researched the guy above. He has been calling for impeachment forever. He's also the one who wrote an article defending Sharia law.

Why Shariah? (Published 2008)

Millions of Muslims think Shariah means the rule of law. Could they be right?

www.nytimes.com

If he doesn't even think trump is impeached... lol. Dems silly.

 

[Sacred]

Except that it doesn't fit the definition of "coup attempt" in any serious manner. Impeachment is part of the legal framework, even if you believe he's innocent.

It is a "coup" because it was the very first ever 100% partisan impeachment. Nixon and Clinton's impeachments took well over a year to review and vote on. Trump got 12 weeks, it's a complete fucking farce and America knows it.

 

[autoduelist]

Durham and Barr will let us know if this was a coup or... just FBI editing emails and over a dozen other offenses aimed at wiretapping and defeating a candidate and then duly elected President... also based on a dossier know to be unreliable and bought and paid for by the DNC.

And then a CIA agent 'whistleblowing' in coordination with the House head of Intelligence. And piledrived into the American consciousness by CNN and other media who hired a roster of high ranking alphabet agents who told us he was definitely guilty for 3 years.

It's so hard to tell. Coup? Not coup?

Just think... if fisa never happened, and the steele dossier was never intentionally leaked, and carter page was never lied about by the fbi... we wouldn't have russiagate.

And if biden wasn't corrupt... we wouldn't have ukrainegate.

And if we didn't have all these years of anti-trump propaganda... how high would trumps approval be? How many more people would trust him if they werent told he was a Russian agent for years?

Barr has recently said this goes all the way up. Guiliani, the man who brought down the mafia and cleaned up nyc, is saying the corruption is thick beyond belief.

But let's believe Schiff instead... the man who told us on tv he had seen direct evidence trump was guilty of collusion, who worked with these very alaphabet agents, who read a fake version of the letter to congress.

 

[Hotspurr]

Almost as petty as modifying a hurricane map with a sharpie.

 

[autoduelist]

Almost as petty as modifying a hurricane map with a sharpie.

Whether he is impeached or not is hardly petty. If the House never relays the articles the difference is of historic importance.

 

[Shaqazooloo]

Does it really matter whether or not Trump has impeached tied to him, I'm not sure anyone's gonna care. Ok he got impeached, so what? He's still in office, comes off as a pointless label to me.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Does it really matter whether or not Trump has impeached tied to him, I'm not sure anyone's gonna care. Ok he got impeached, so what? He's still in office, comes off as a pointless label to me.

But it matters for my Tweetard trends!

 

[Hotspurr]

Whether he is impeached or not is hardly petty. If the House never relays the articles the difference is of historic importance.

For all practical purposes he is impeached and the media and people will forever refer to it as such. No amount of pouting and hand gesturing will change that.

Mitch saying it will basically not be a fair trial because he's partial is a perfectly good reason to negotiate the terms and not continue the process untill it's fair. I don't remember Pelosi boasting on television that no matter what they will impeach Trump. McConnell's comments are absurd and I'd honestly remove him at this point.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

I just made a double-post.
You can't see the second post because I didn't press "Post Reply".
But to all intents and purposes this is a double-post. And the people will forever refer to it as such.

 

[Grinchy]

I just made a double-post.
You can't see the second post because I didn't press "Post Reply".
But to all intents and purposes this is a double-post. And the people will forever refer to it as such.

Are you waiting for one of the mods to explain the rules of posting before you submit it?

 

[flibbertyjibbert]

The difference is semantic in my opinion. The vote has been held and, like an indictment, once it's set in motion it will eventually be "served".

you can't just "in my opinion" your way out of being factually wrong lol. Legally, he's not been impeached.

if we're going to play that game, then in my opinion Nancy Pelosi has been convicted of child sex trafficking. I WIN

 

[CeroFrio996]

you can't just "in my opinion" your way out of being factually wrong lol. Legally, he's not been impeached.

if we're going to play that game, then in my opinion Nancy Pelosi has been convicted of child sex trafficking. I WIN

Your comparison is not apt. Trump hasn't been convicted of anything, he's been indicted. The semantics is in whether or not it "counts" before Nancy delivers the articles to the Senate.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Cute, the same side that furnished all these "quid pro quo" experts now wants to educate us on what impeachment really means while they ignore their own constitutional expert. It's getting too predictable.

 

[Caffeine]

wait till they find out he has to be convicted in the republican majority senate to be ineligible for a second term.

 

[Thaedolus]

Eh, just have another vote on identical articles then.

 

[Afro Republican]

They are just holding out until they see the polls. If they drop below their minimum they will drop the articles and then come up with some spin to blame it on the Republicans to keep their base brainwashed.. If it's not too low or grows, or they have more fake polls like the CNN one contradicting all the other recent polls, they will send it to the Senate, then when they acquit Trump they will come up with some spin to blame it on the Republicans.

 

[Joe T.]

It's probably come up in another thread, but based on a Schiff appearance on MSNBC recently these clowns sound like they're working to impeach Mike Pence, too.

Adam Schiff has unfinished business with Mike Pence over classified evidence: "Will the cover up succeed?"

Schiff told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that it is improper for the vice president's office to classify information solely because it might be incriminating.

www.newsweek.com

He calls it a "cover up" even though they've had access to the information and were in a position to call the witness back before the House wrapped things up, so Schiff continues to come across like a total fraud here, projecting his own guilt.

Pelosi's about as power-hungry a politician as I've seen in the last couple of decades, trying to tie Pence to this ridiculous allegation against Trump and succeeding to remove them as a package deal would make her the first woman president in the US, but I think patience for this garbage has been worn out and they'd be making a dangerous mistake going down that path.

 

[JORMBO]

I don't remember Pelosi boasting on television that no matter what they will impeach Trump. McConnell's comments are absurd and I'd honestly remove him at this point.

Maybe not Pelosi herself. Schiff, Nadler and a large amount of the Democrat party have been calling for it for the last 3 years. If McConnell should be removed then Schiff and Nadler should have been removed from running hearings.

 

[cryptoadam]

Its just more dem abuse of power. We saw it with HRC and rigging against Bernie. We saw it with crossfire Hurricane and frauding the FISA. We saw it with Mueller with taxi cab medallions and process crimes. We saw it with Schiff and Nadlee running the hearings.

And now they want to control the Senate and set the rules. The house voted they could of spent more time on this callex more wittnesses but they made it the fastest impeachment in history. And now they want to abuse and extend their power to the Senate. Its done they have no more power but like all power hungry people they cant let go.

Really it comes down to control. They know once the articles go to the Senate they have no control for the forst time and they cant accept that. As long as it stays in the house they have the power and control. Nancy will drag this out for as long as she can to keep up the charade that the dems have any power.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

Your sanctuary city voters, folks. Shines bright like a light bulb!

Their hair colors probably glow in the dark so you may be right.

 

[BigBooper]

The proverbial reflective hair on a hill.

 

[autoduelist]

It's probably come up in another thread, but based on a Schiff appearance on MSNBC recently these clowns sound like they're working to impeach Mike Pence, too.

If they try to impeach their way to Pelosi being president, there will be conflict.

 

[Hotspurr]

Maybe not Pelosi herself. Schiff, Nadler and a large amount of the Democrat party have been calling for it for the last 3 years. If McConnell should be removed then Schiff and Nadler should have been removed from running hearings.

Schiff and Nadler were a poor choice for optics, but how exactly did they undermine the process?

Republicans complain they wanted to call witnesses like Chalupa, Biden and the whistleblower.

Chalupa and Biden - though they may be related to the investigation Trump pushed for, they don't have any evidence related to his actions or his motives. If Trump has evidence about the actions of Hunter or Chalupa that justify his pressure on Ukraine, he is free to release said evidence to justify that he acted in good faith . What he cannot do is use his impeachment trial to conduct an investigation into the Bidens and Ukraine "interference". This is why these witnesses were not called.

As for the whistleblower - again, their only job was to raise the issue. Their knowledge of the affair is equivalent to anyone else who was on the call. They have no other information. After Trump made a threat on the whistleblowers life, Democrats decided to protect him/her by not making his identity public or participating in the proceedings.

On the other hand, Mulvaney, Perry, Bolton, Pompao, had direct knowledge of why Trump acted the way he did and how things really happened, but more from a first hand perspective. Although the case is already pretty strong based on all the testimonies that are in very close agreement, first hand testimony from Trump's inner circle will be undeniable to even his most fervent supporters.

 

[cryptoadam]

Schiff released the calls of a private citizen and his political opponent in an attempt to intimidate them. He violated the civil liberties of a private citizen.

Either way the house job is done. They can whine and cry all they want. Ill fess up and say that Rs complained alot about the house. But that fell on deaf ears and in the end the house had the control of the process.

Now its the Senates turn and the house is done. The dems holding the articles hostage to try and impose themselves on the Senate is just further abuse of power and certinaly seems like a quid pro quo to me.

 

[JORMBO]

Schiff and Nadler were a poor choice for optics, but how exactly did they undermine the process?

Your original comment was about Mitch. He has already heard all the evidence from the house investigation when making up his mind. We have the transcript also.

Democrats like Schiff have been making accusations for 3 years and then trying to fill in the blanks after. Do you not believe that a lot of them had their minds made up on how they were going to vote before the impeachment process even began? Should they have dismissed themselves?

Not exactly sure where you are going with the rest of your post since it appears to be drifting in a different direction, but I'll try to comment...

Chalupa and Biden - though they may be related to the investigation Trump pushed for, they don't have any evidence related to his actions or his motives. If Trump has evidence about the actions of Hunter or Chalupa that justify his pressure on Ukraine, he is free to release said evidence to justify that he acted in good faith . What he cannot do is use his impeachment trial to conduct an investigation into the Bidens and Ukraine "interference". This is why these witnesses were not called.

To me the Vice President's son collecting buckets of cash for a job he doesn't even have to show up for reeks of corruption. Neither Hunter nor Joe can answer what he was being paid for. I would have been interested in learning more about this myself.

As for the whistleblower - again, their only job was to raise the issue. Their knowledge of the affair is equivalent to anyone else who was on the call. They have no other information. After Trump made a threat on the whistleblowers life, Democrats decided to protect him/her by not making his identity public or participating in the proceedings.

The bolded is overly dramatic and silly. The democrats only want to protect him because he most likely met with Schiff beforehand, which Schiff lied about. The whistleblower also appears to have a lot of extreme bias which would have been bad optics for the democrats. But overall I agree they are not really needed at this point. It would have been interesting to hear from them though, even if it's not really necessary.

On the other hand, Mulvaney, Perry, Bolton, Pompao, had direct knowledge of why Trump acted the way he did and how things really happened, but more from a first hand perspective. Although the case is already pretty strong based on all the testimonies that are in very close agreement, first hand testimony from Trump's inner circle will be undeniable to even his most fervent supporters.

This was the house's job. They could have issued subpeonas, followed the law and then gotten them to testify if the courts ruled in their favor. They chose to skip this and it is their own fault. The house shouldn't be complaining now that the senate won't do the work they already should have done.

At this point the house should pass their case along to the senate. The senate can then present it through each sides lawyers, take a vote then we can move on.

 

[Shizumapower]

I just realized why I don't need a new sitcom to watch.

 

[Caffeine]

lol the stogi

Liveleak.com - Ted Cruz calls out the corrupt Anti-American Democrats!

As a republican I never really used to like Ted but over the past year..

www.liveleak.com

 

[cryptoadam]

Trump be like

 

[The Mad Draklor]

The bolded is overly dramatic and silly. The democrats only want to protect him because he most likely met with Schiff beforehand, which Schiff lied about. The whistleblower also appears to have a lot of extreme bias which would have been bad optics for the democrats. But overall I agree they are not really needed at this point. It would have been interesting to hear from them though, even if it's not really necessary.

Also, making a threat to a person's life is a criminal offense. If Trump did such a thing, then how come the "alleged" crime wasn't stated in either article of impeachment?

 

[Hotspurr]

Your original comment was about Mitch. He has already heard all the evidence from the house investigation when making up his mind. We have the transcript also.

Democrats like Schiff have been making accusations for 3 years and then trying to fill in the blanks after. Do you not believe that a lot of them had their minds made up on how they were going to vote before the impeachment process even began? Should they have dismissed themselves?

Not exactly sure where you are going with the rest of your post since it appears to be drifting in a different direction, but I'll try to comment...



To me the Vice President's son collecting buckets of cash for a job he doesn't even have to show up for reeks of corruption. Neither Hunter nor Joe can answer what he was being paid for. I would have been interested in learning more about this myself.



The bolded is overly dramatic and silly. The democrats only want to protect him because he most likely met with Schiff beforehand, which Schiff lied about. The whistleblower also appears to have a lot of extreme bias which would have been bad optics for the democrats. But overall I agree they are not really needed at this point. It would have been interesting to hear from them though, even if it's not really necessary.



This was the house's job. They could have issued subpeonas, followed the law and then gotten them to testify if the courts ruled in their favor. They chose to skip this and it is their own fault. The house shouldn't be complaining now that the senate won't do the work they already should have done.

At this point the house should pass their case along to the senate. The senate can then present it through each sides lawyers, take a vote then we can move on.

Well, if Democrats are right and Trump was using his power for personal political influence, going through the courts would be too slow to prevent him from further abusing his power. Why is it a better question "why didn't Democrats go through courts?" than "why was Trump blocking critical people from testifying?". As a someone who would want to get to the bottom of this, a rational approach would be not to want the accused party from blocking key witnesses.

Let me ask you this, do you agree with Trump intentionally blocking key witnesses from testifying who have first hand knowledge of these questionable events, which by the way, most of this board agrees range from problematic to very serious? (Based on the poll). I'm not talking about legality, I'm asking you personally.


Edit: I would just add, that just because Mitch has made up his mind, doesn't mean everyone has and if there is merit to calling witnesses, which there is, that should be respected to ensure a fair process. The fact that key witnesses were blocked by the accused perpetrator is already pretty telling and only logical that to enable a fair process those witnesses should be called. As for Hunter Biden, I too suspect some nepotism, but perhaps nothing more. This is a separate investigation that the DOJ could undertake, but it in no way sheds light on what Trump did and why, which is the underlying reason for his impeachment. Again, if Trump is fully justified of pursuing Biden, then he must have some hard evidence that he can share with the American people, otherwise it's clear he was pursuing it for no good reason and most likely for personal political reasons.

 

[autoduelist]

Elements of the far left now turning on impeachment and democrats...

 

[Afro Republican]

You're going to see Democrat Youtubers and vloggers turn on the party since they were deceived into thinking impeachment meant removal from office.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Well, if Democrats are right and Trump was using his power for personal political influence, going through the courts would be too slow to prevent him from further abusing his power. Why is it a better question "why didn't Democrats go through courts?" than "why was Trump blocking critical people from testifying?". As a someone who would want to get to the bottom of this, a rational approach would be not to want the accused party from blocking key witnesses.

Let me ask you this, do you agree with Trump intentionally blocking key witnesses from testifying who have first hand knowledge of these questionable events, which by the way, most of this board agrees range from problematic to very serious? (Based on the poll). I'm not talking about legality, I'm asking you personally.

I agree with Trump not cooperating with any of this, due to the almost never reported admission that all of this was based in presumption presented as fact, and the star witness for the democrats admitted as much. At that point, interviews become "anything you say can and will be used against you" territory. Nothing revealed to help Trump would be presented in the national news or weighed into the decision of the people who had already committed to impeaching him before he even took office. And I know this based on what already has been revealed that helps Trump, and how it's completely ignored. You really have two equal branches of the government in a dispute, with the solution being to involve the third, and that's what Trump is doing.

Schiff and Nadler were a poor choice for optics, but how exactly did they undermine the process?

By having argued against partisan impeachment in the past. These optics, as you refer to them, absolutely undermine the process. Same video, two timestamps:

 

[JORMBO]

Well, if Democrats are right and Trump was using his power for personal political influence, going through the courts would be too slow to prevent him from further abusing his power. Why is it a better question "why didn't Democrats go through courts?" than "why was Trump blocking critical people from testifying?". As a someone who would want to get to the bottom of this, a rational approach would be not to want the accused party from blocking key witnesses.

Edit: I would just add, that just because Mitch has made up his mind, doesn't mean everyone has and if there is merit to calling witnesses, which there is, that should be respected to ensure a fair process. The fact that key witnesses were blocked by the accused perpetrator is already pretty telling and only logical that to enable a fair process those witnesses should be called. As for Hunter Biden, I too suspect some nepotism, but perhaps nothing more. This is a separate investigation that the DOJ could undertake, but it in no way sheds light on what Trump did and why, which is the underlying reason for his impeachment. Again, if Trump is fully justified of pursuing Biden, then he must have some hard evidence that he can share with the American people, otherwise it's clear he was pursuing it for no good reason and most likely for personal political reasons.

I believe the reasoning behind this is separation of powers. The President should be able to consult his staff privately. Should Congress be able to call the President’s lawyers and inner circle? Let the courts decide. If these people are that important following the legal process should be no issue. There’s no evidence that Trump is trying to “further abuse his power”. That’s a bullshit reason they are trying to sell. The Democrats don’t want to wait because it will interfere with their primaries. And since polling on this is moving out of their favor they would rather push it through so there is a lot of time between impeachment in the general election. If it blows up in their face they are hoping people won’t remember as well a year from now.

The evidence against the Biden’s is the payments to his son while his father is Vice President in charge of foreign policy with the Ukraine. No one is disputing he was paid to do nothing by a foreign government his dad was directly working with. You say none of this matters, but this and other corruption issues in the Ukraine are directly what Trump was asking about. It’s all tied together. Trump referred Zelensky to Barr on the call.

Let me ask you this, do you agree with Trump intentionally blocking key witnesses from testifying who have first hand knowledge of these questionable events, which by the way, most of this board agrees range from problematic to very serious? (Based on the poll). I'm not talking about legality, I'm asking you personally.

Personally I believe we should follow the legal process (craziness). I don’t think the case presented is strong enough and I don’t think Trump should be pushed around into giving in to the Democrats demands that the courts can decide. Seeing as how the aide was released and Zelensky got everything he wanted without giving anything in return I don’t think these witnesses have any huge bombshells and this is mostly a huge waste of time at this point.

Where we disagree is with how strong the evidence is. The evidence hasn’t really changed much for awhile so it’s just the same argument being tossed back and forth for the past few weeks. It will be interesting in seeing how the voters decide in November.

 

[Hotspurr]

I believe the reasoning behind this is separation of powers. The President should be able to consult his staff privately. Should Congress be able to call the President’s lawyers and inner circle? Let the courts decide. If these people are that important following the legal process should be no issue. There’s no evidence that Trump is trying to “further abuse his power”. That’s a bullshit reason they are trying to sell. The Democrats don’t want to wait because it will interfere with their primaries. And since polling on this is moving out of their favor they would rather push it through so there is a lot of time between impeachment in the general election. If it blows up in their face they are hoping people won’t remember as well a year from now.

The evidence against the Biden’s is the payments to his son while his father is Vice President in charge of foreign policy with the Ukraine. No one is disputing he was paid to do nothing by a foreign government his dad was directly working with. You say none of this matters, but this and other corruption issues in the Ukraine are directly what Trump was asking about. It’s all tied together. Trump referred Zelensky to Barr on the call.

What you are referring to is a subset of nepotism. How do you feel about Trump's kids receiving special jobs in government while he is president? How do you feel about Trump's kids overseeing major companies that used to belong to Trump while he is president? Or how about Saudi Arabia funneling money into Trump's hotel while he is president? (these are rhetorical)

Again, there is nothing that says Hunter working a Ukrainian company while his father is overseeing Ukraine policy is corruption. Besides, that is not what this is about. What the claim from the right is that Biden fired Shokin BECAUSE Hunter was working for Burisma. There is absolutely no evidence for this. I suspect people with this view just have personal hunches or feelings, but there has been no substance or proof of any of this.

Personally I believe we should follow the legal process (craziness). I don’t think the case presented is strong enough and I don’t think Trump should be pushed around into giving in to the Democrats demands that the courts can decide. Seeing as how the aide was released and Zelensky got everything he wanted without giving anything in return I don’t think these witnesses have any huge bombshells and this is mostly a huge waste of time at this point.

Where we disagree is with how strong the evidence is. The evidence hasn’t really changed much for awhile so it’s just the same argument being tossed back and forth for the past few weeks. It will be interesting in seeing how the voters decide in November.

You understand that attempted bribery and attempted extortion is nearly equally as bad right? Just because Trump failed at extorting the Ukrainians doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong. The last piece to make this case airtight is to definitively show motive. Trump tried to argue the motive was corruption in Ukraine, but he has failed to produce evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens or 2016 Ukranian government election interference, markedly the DNC server thing he brought during the call was a Russia hoax. The other black mark on this is that he explicitly ignored official anti-corruption talking points given to him by government officials. Based on first hand accounts of people who spoke directly to him, he made aid and a white house meeting dependent on investigations. The particular investigations are of direct political interest to him, given who Biden is and that the election interference investigation relates to him being criticized on social media (and perhaps the Manafort stuff, who is now in jail for good reason). All that's left is to have someone who spoke to Trump directly with regards to initiating the pressure campaign for investigations, like Rudy or Mulvaney, to establish a very clear motive.

At any rate, thanks for the thoughtful replies.

 

[Afro Republican]

I wonder if Hotspurr realizes that attempted bribery an attempted extortion aren't in the articles of impeachment.

 

[JORMBO]

What you are referring to is a subset of nepotism. How do you feel about Trump's kids receiving special jobs in government while he is president? How do you feel about Trump's kids overseeing major companies that used to belong to Trump while he is president? Or how about Saudi Arabia funneling money into Trump's hotel while he is president? (these are rhetorical)

Trump's children are not paid while working in their positions. Trump owned a large company prior to becoming President. I don't think it would be resonable to ask him to donate it to charity because he got elected. I would expect children of rich, well known people to have some benefits in their life. It's unfair, but that's reality. Having a Vice President's son on the board of company owned by a foreign government and collecting free money crosses the line. Hunter knew nothing about energy, didn't speak Ukrainian and didn't even have to show up for work. He only got the job right after his dad took over Ukrainian foreign policy.

Again, there is nothing that says Hunter working a Ukrainian company while his father is overseeing Ukraine policy is corruption. Besides, that is not what this is about. What the claim from the right is that Biden fired Shokin BECAUSE Hunter was working for Burisma. There is absolutely no evidence for this. I suspect people with this view just have personal hunches or feelings, but there has been no substance or proof of any of this.

Nothing except large, unexplained payments. There's no evidence of anything else because there would need to be a legitimate investigation for that to happen. I'm not "the right" so I form my own opinions about things. While it would be interesting to learn more about the Shokin situation, to me it looks fishy even leaving him out of the equation. Ukraine hires Hunter -> US gives Ukraine lots of money -> Ukraine pays Hunter large sums of money for nothing. Maybe we are funding Hunter's coke habit? Who knows. All I'm saying is I would like to know more. I can see why a lot of people would be curious.

You understand that attempted bribery and attempted extortion is nearly equally as bad right? Just because Trump failed at extorting the Ukrainians doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong. The last piece to make this case airtight is to definitively show motive. Trump tried to argue the motive was corruption in Ukraine, but he has failed to produce evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens or 2016 Ukranian government election interference, markedly the DNC server thing he brought during the call was a Russia hoax. The other black mark on this is that he explicitly ignored official anti-corruption talking points given to him by government officials. Based on first hand accounts of people who spoke directly to him, he made aid and a white house meeting dependent on investigations. The particular investigations are of direct political interest to him, given who Biden is and that the election interference investigation relates to him being criticized on social media (and perhaps the Manafort stuff, who is now in jail for good reason). All that's left is to have someone who spoke to Trump directly with regards to initiating the pressure campaign for investigations, like Rudy or Mulvaney, to establish a very clear motive.

We've moved from quid pro quo, to bribery, to attempted bribery to abuse of power. The democrats did not bring forth an article of impeachment for bribery. Mostly a moot point now.

Are you suprised Trump ignored talking points given to him? I would imagine that happens a lot. The President does not have to follow talking points handed to him while talking to a foreign leader.

There have also been plenty of articles about Ukrainian efforts to mess with the 2016 election. Anytime this is brought up the legacy media argues "but everyone knows it was Russia that did it!". That's true, but that doesn't mean they are the only player. I'm sure China, Iran, NK, etc. have pretty much always been trying to interfere and always will try in the future. This is the more popular articles from 2017 that's circulated around regarding this:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

www.politico.com

Due to stuff like this I believe Trump was not too trusting of the Ukraine. I also believe he asked for an investigation, but did not require anything for this and did not seriously follow up on it. Ukraine got their call in the middle of the Summer, and their meeting/aid in September. Ukraine says they weren't pressured. We don't have a victim here. Unless you count me watching all these boring hearings.

Trump has frozen aid for review to several other countries, so it's not really abnormal. One of the fellows who testified mentioned aid to Lebanon was frozen around the same time and is still frozen to this day. No one seems to care about that. Poor Lebanon.

At any rate, thanks for the thoughtful replies.

Good conversation. I see where you are coming from. You are making a much stronger connection to everything. I don't feel the evidence is solid enough to connect things together that strongly. It doesn't feel like this is worth going through impeachment to me, which is probably why poll numbers are slightly dipping also. Trump doesn't do things normally and he's a bit of a doofus. Most of the abnormalities from this situation seem to stem from that rather then some secret, nefarious plot.

 

[Mista K]

If he’s impeached, can he still be reelected? Lol

 

[infinitys_7th]

American democracy’s Senate problem, explained

A huge — and growing — source of bias in the political system.

www.vox.com

I wonder if the Democrats are misguided enough to use impeachment to get a constitutional convention going to turn the Senate into another proportionally elected Congress. Impeachment support is dwindling, and they cannot possibly get the voting supermajorities needed to ratify a new amendment.

If the plan was to use "We cannot send it to the Senate because they will protect wicked Drumpf" to generate support for an amendment, it has backfired. Support for impeachment is nearly less than half of what is needed for an amendment, depending what route they go.

Oh wow, i assumed it was the guy who testified the Dems were the ones committing abuse of power. I researched the guy above. He has been calling for impeachment forever. He's also the one who wrote an article defending Sharia law.

Why Shariah? (Published 2008)

Millions of Muslims think Shariah means the rule of law. Could they be right?

www.nytimes.com

If he doesn't even think trump is impeached... lol. Dems silly.

He calls Sharia Law (paraphrasing) one of the most humane law systems ever devised.

Throwing gays off rooftops? Humane, I guess.

Stoning adultering women? Humane, I guess.

Chopping off hands of thieves? Humane, I guess.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

 

[Zefah]

If he’s impeached, can he still be reelected? Lol

Yeah, there's nothing that would prevent him from showing up on ballots or being re-elected if he got the votes.