The purpose of Impeachment.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Dec 4, 2019.

  1. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Problem with your conception on the reasoning for impeachment based on the Founders is that its all based around Trump. You took what the founders said with Trump and your own biases in mind. Some of what you say is true, but its colored by your own biases.

    Originally they thought about just leaving the impeachment as allowing Congress the ability to impeach. No clarifications, nothing. IE: The President could be impeached for any reason. But they discarded that idea because they were afraid that a political party would abuse it. That is why they added in "high crimes and misdemeanors". They wanted people to know that a President should ONLY be impeached based on something that was actually serious and a threat to the country.

    Anyways, asking a foreign government for a favor is actually common and every ambassador does it. It's part of negotiating. So really, you have nothing when it comes to that. Quid Pro Quo is also a natural thing that happens in politics. Holding aide back is also a natural thing that happens in politics. Even combining those two happens all the time. So you actually have nothing in regards to that.

    What is really at issue here is whether or not Trump did what he did for political gain. That is the question. That is what needs to be proved. NOT assumed. It's easy to say "oh he did this just because its his political rival!!!". Quite another to prove it. You could prove that he held back aide. You could prove that he conditioned that aide in investigating Biden. But none of that means a thing because those are a natural part of the powers that ANY President has. What you NEED to prove is whether or not Trump held back the aide to force Ukraine into investigating the Bidens FOR POLITICAL GAIN. THAT is where it would be an impeachable offense. Simply ASSUMING that he did so for political gain is nothing more than opinion based on biases. And no President should be impeached based on assumptions.
     
  2. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,997
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And the men who did not give up in the Alamo were killed. You would have to be a complete moron to believe that Texas was going to even consider giving up because of the Alamo. But I guess that is the way democrats think. You are just typical of the democrats doing the impeachment. Distortions of the facts.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
    ButterBalls and william kurps like this.
  3. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course they are, They. Dont. CARE!

    Were Trump to be caught himself taking the voting machines and having programmers change all the totals they would just say he was Making America Great Again
     
  4. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Much as I appreciate you having me in such high intellectual regard that you assume this "conception" is mine... It's not. It's from the experts that testified on Wednesday.

    But they did, in fact, state that it was as if the founders were thinking of Trump when they discussed Impeachment on the floor of Congress and on the Federalist Papers. It looks like you agree with that.
    Hope you understand that talking about biases is not going to help Trump. Only referring to the facts will. Or might... Assuming that there is some way to refer to them that is positive for Trump. So far there has been none.

    Great! But that's nothing new. It was mentioned already on the hearings. And it was also mentioned that the thing they feared most and considered the worst threat in the incipient Republic, was to lose that Republic, and that it would become a Monarchy. In other words, that a President might use his powers to perpetuate himself in power in some way different than the Will of the People. Extorting a foreign President to seek dirt on his opponent would certainly fit the bill.

    On Wednesday's hearings, it became clear what the Trump defense would be. I made a list and posted it here. See point 7

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-will-be-is-starting-to-become-clear.565241/

    Bottom line, expect them to use many statements like the one you use, where they start describing the action, and stop exactly where the impeachable act begins. So yes... asking a favor from a foreign government is normal. But if that favor is, for example, to help muddy up the Presiden'ts opponent... You see the difference between omitting and not omitting the actionable portion, right? Yours was a strawman. But when completed, we see that a high crime was committed.

    It's as if somebody says "I want you to do us a favor, though... I want you to rob the bank down the street and hand me half the money" and you claimed that that is not problem because he was just asking for a favor.

    It's not. It's on the Memo (that Trump calls a transcript), the witnesses testified to that effect, ... it's in the fact that he had showed absolutely no interest in corruption whatsoever. It's on Giuliani's emails. It's also in the fact that he is stonewalling the investigation.

    And, BTW, you'd be wise not to discard "assumptions" altogether. There are, of course, so many facts that assumptions wouldn't be necessary. But in an impeachment they also count as evidence. The conclusions to which any rational human being would come to using basic human reason are absolutely valid.

    And, of course, we haven't even started with the fact that obstruction of Congress is, in itself, an impeachable offense. And, of course, there's Mueller's Report. So this is based on much much more than "assumptions". The American people has seen it every day. At least since he fired Comey. And it has only gotten worse since then.
     
  5. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,997
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    An impeachable offense is anything the democrats want to call an impeachable offense. So far it has been nothing but noise which doesn't stand a chance in hell of going anywhere in the senate. Not even all the democrats will vote for it. in the house or the senate.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  6. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,619
    Likes Received:
    8,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Neither was their morale. Cries of Remember the Alamo was the spirit that crushed them in 18 minutes.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  7. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,619
    Likes Received:
    8,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No...I am quite familiar w/ government plantation politics and the Democrat form of "Just us".
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  8. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,267
    Likes Received:
    18,030
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The only people that care the people who sit rage watching. Just hoping that they can get anything on Trump.

    Kind of sad don't you think?
     
    ButterBalls and TheGreatSatan like this.
  9. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it was from those "experts" then why did you indicate that it was your idea? Not once in your OP did you indicate that it was from these "experts". You indicated that you got it from the Founders and the Federalist Papers.

    Actually I stated some of what you said was true. I never said that I agreed with it. The Founders were very aware of and didn't want our Republic to become a Monarchy. But that wasn't their greatest fear. Their greatest fear was that our federal government as a whole would become tyrannical. Why do you think that they put so many restrictions on the Federal government as a whole? The Greatest example of that is what they did right after the Constitution was signed. And that was to make the Bill of Rights. Which as you'll notice doesn't actually make one mention of The President or the Executive Branch. But does specifically reference Congress. "Congress shall make no law" is a clause that pretty much everyone recognizes.

    As Jim Jordan likes to say...there are 4 facts which have not changed in this entire proceeding.

    As far as biases and facts go. The American Public now knows why the Democrats did not tell The People who those "Constitutional Scholars" were going to be. They didn't want their obvious biases exposed until they had already given their "testimony". Let me ask you a question...how can we trust objectivity from a "constitutional scholar" that admits that they can't even walk on the same side as Trump Tower? How can we trust objectivity from a "Constitutional Scholar" hollered for Trump to be impeached for tweeting about wiretapping and other pithy things? Facts comes from objectivity. Not biases. You want facts, then listen to someone that tries to be as objective as they can. Like Turly who admitted that he did not vote for Trump and doesn't particularly like a lot of what Trump has done, yet still managed to stick to actual facts. Like the fact that a President should not be impeached simply because he is asking the courts to decide on whether he should release the information that the Dems have demanded from him. As is his Right to do. As every President has done since the Founding of this country.

    Yes, I'm aware of your post. I already addressed your point 7. Instead of referring to your post here perhaps you can try and actually dispute it? Something that you did not do in that thread or here.

    Except that I didn't stop right where the line for impeachment was. In fact I specifically talked about it. Didn't I?

    That's called being an accessory to a crime. There is no crime in asking for a favor or asking them to investigate Biden. In fact that is the Presidents job. To make sure that all laws are enforced. The crime would be if he did it for political gain. Something which you or anyone else have yet to prove.

    Please show where in that "memo" as you like to call it that Trump states or infers he wants an investigation of Biden for personal political gain. Please show where the witnesses have given proof of such also. You claim that they do. But every single one of them has admitted that it is their opinion or presumption. Not one has been able to provide any actual fact to it having actually been. Again, no President should be impeached on assumptions.

    Anything is "valid" in an impeachment. Doesn't mean that everything actually is valid in a reasoned mind. For instance you can impeach a President simply for sitting in the Oval Office. Doesn't mean that its a valid reason to anyone with a reasoned mind.


    Obstruction of Congress is only impeachable when all other avenues that a President has a Right to has been used up. As Turly noted....there are Three Branches of Government. Not Two. And the President has every Right to bring Congresses Demands to that Third Branch.

    And you might as well forget about Mueller. The Democrats have yet to mention Mueller in this entire impeachment hearing. They have hung all their hats on this Ukraine thing.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  10. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I did not demean anyone's testimony. I took their testimony at face value. Only one witness testified to first hand factual evidence.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  11. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not always. Obama used his power as president to keep his party in power which included them paying foreigners for direct election help, yet he lost.
    Don't forgot the other offenses that your so-called scholars said were impeachable: writing mean tweets and naming a president's son Baron.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  12. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Congress has no authority to oversee the president. They do have oversight over the execution of their laws but nowhere is it mentioned let alone mandated in the Constitution.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  13. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read the first three words!

    I see you are working hard on your reading comprehension skills. Good for you, but you still have some way to go.


    Your disagreement with the Founding Fathers duly noted

    Exactly the same thing. By "tyrannical" they meant like King George III. They understood "Monarchy" as tyranny. They restricted the powers of the President because they didn't want him to become a King (i.e. a Tyrant). And the President would become a tyrant if they abused power.

    Oh God! That's an absurd argument. The American People have no idea if the Democrats tell or not tell who the Constitutional Scholars were going to be. They could not care less about quibbles regarding the minutia of the process. What the American People care about is if their President abused his power. Period! The facts. And the American People are waiting to see if Republicans tell "the other side of the story" regarding the facts. But it's obvious to any of us who is following the process closely that they want to avoid talking about the facts. To the point where Trump even commits another impeachable act: Contempt of Congress

    Look... let's get our head out of the right-wingnut media frenzy.... Americans don't care about the process. They care about the facts. What makes you think that Republicans will suddenly start providing evidence that counter the facts that we know now, if they haven't done that so far?

    Everything you have said has either been rebutted or proven irrelevant. And the only relevant thing are the facts. But Republicans insist on debating the process. And the large majority of Americans couldn't care less about the process. they care about the facts. So why waste time debating irrelevant nonsense like... whether or not Democrats gave the list of "Constitutional Scholars" or not.

    Nope! What follows are facts. You have not addressed any fact. Other than to deny them. But that is not "addressing" them given that the accumulation of evidence that keeps coming out every single day prove and confirm again and again the facts. Trump was not interested in corruption.... Trump didn't even want an investigation. Trump wanted Zelenski to make a public statement saying that they were investigating. But couldn't care less if they actually did the investigation or not. Facts! They have been confirmed by multiple witnesses. Not a single WH official or anybody whatsoever in this administration has testified under oath that Trump was interested in corruption. And they could... they could easily prove that he was. Declasifying documents. Or even allowing the witnesses to testify. Trump won't allow them. That's also a fact. And that fact, in and of itself, is impeachable.

    So facts are against you, and you have not addressed them. Because nobody in the Republican Party has addressed them. The closest they have come is the old "I'm rubber you're glue" defense. And project Trumps crimes to Biden... to Hillary... to Obama... to... anybody they can think of. None of which excuses Trump.

    There you go again . If he were interested in corruption, he would go through the appropriate channels to investigate corruption. Not Biden. If Biden turned out to be involved, so be it. But he even went as far as illegally withholding appropriated funds. So yes. He pressured Zolensky to investigate, not corruption, but Biden. And the reason for this is a wild Conspiracy Theory. And that is a high crime.

    But it is the President's job, not only to make sure the laws are enforced. And breaking the law is not the proper way to enforce the law. That's why he's being impeached.


    The defense that it's not bribery unless you can show the President saying "I want a bribe from you" is not going to hold. They might try to use some form of it, but they know it won't work. It doesn't even work in a criminal trial, where the requirements are much stricter than in a political trial. There are public officials in jail for bribery. And very few of them explicitly state anything like "If you want this, you gotta give me that" But juries still convict them. Which should make it clear to you that the majority of Americans just don't buy it. They know what they see and hear. And they value their common sense enough to not be swayed by nonsense.

    BTW, "memo" is not what I "like" to call it. It's what the memo calls itself.

    Memo: "I would like you to do us a favor though... I would like you to find out what happened with this whole si�uation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ...."

    MR. WELCH: And was thene any doubt in youn mind as to what the President, oun Pnesident, was asking fon as a delivenable?
    LT. COL. VINDMAN: There was no doubt.

    Gordoan Sondland: "We followed the President's orders"
    [​IMG]

    Anyway... I might make a compilation, like the one I did with the proof of Trump's criminal acts shown on the Mueller Report... But it's clear that saying that no evidence exists is simply... a denial of reality.

    And, BTW, there is the Mueller Report. And there is the fact that Trump is obstructing Congress.... and many many other high crimes. Either of which is enough to remove any President.

    In what pertains to Impeachment, the Constitution clearl there is not three, not two but one... Congress!

    Quote in the Constitution where it says that such right exists. If you can't, you made it up!

    Now you are making up crap! You and I don't know what the Articles of Impeachment will be. But, regardless, it's clear in the Mueller Report that Trump is a criminal. So it is clear why you don't want them to include it. But your reason is not patriotic in the least bit. There needs to be a point where you guys should stop placing your partisanship before your patriotism. Because I am convinced that, once everything is out in public, most Americans will.
     
  14. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not correct. The founders and framers did not equate tyranny with a monarchy. They purposely commented that"the tyranny of a majority is every bit as bad as the tyranny of a monarch. They would be appalled at the current congress using the impeachment clause as a way to take control of the presidency -- which was their greatest fear and anxiety with the impeachment clause. They would view this process as an unconstitutional attempt to seize power which would soon lead to a one-party tyranny.
     
    Ddyad and Kal'Stang like this.
  15. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll deal with this later. I'm on my lunch break so don't have time to go through all of this.
     
  16. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Huh? In what way does your quote indicate that they did not identify the monarchy as a tyranny?

    Take control of the presidency? Oh God! Don't tell me you, of all posters, are not aware that if Trump is removed, Pence is the one who becomes President.

    I am appalled!
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2019
  17. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It didn't. You said tyranny equated to monarchy.


    As I have said for over a year now, within two months after any removal of Trump, the Democrats will start impeachment proceedings against Pence, given enough time before the 2020 election.
     
    Ddyad and ButterBalls like this.
  18. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,328
    Likes Received:
    39,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Except no extortion was shown. We have a probable cause of corruption and a pay for play scheme involving the son if an elected official on our side and officials or business leaders of another country. We have a mutual cooperation treaty with the country involved. Why shouldn't that be investigated?
     
    Ddyad and ButterBalls like this.
  19. ButterBalls

    ButterBalls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    51,205
    Likes Received:
    37,549
    Trophy Points:
    113
    DAMN! Ten years of pro debating squashed with a very simply and to the point FACT!

    Well done sir!!
     
    Texas Republican and Ddyad like this.
  20. william kurps

    william kurps Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,872
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Who said anything about Hillary?
     
    ButterBalls and Ddyad like this.
  21. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course! The Monarchy they knew well, because they were subject to it, was a tyranny. What is the problem?

    I hope so, but I very highly doubt it. But in the immensely unlikely case that they grew a spine and did that, so what? They impeach Pence, the process takes a least a couple of months during which we have to endure him as the new pseudo-President, and whoever he appoints as vice-President becomes President. Nikki is already auditioning for the job.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
  22. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He thinks Pelosi would become President and considers impeachment a plot to put her into office.
     
  23. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    “I would like you to do us a favor, though.”

    This is from the transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky. It was provided by the White House. The following is a quote from Trump.

    Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor who· was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor bf New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General.· :Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States,· the woman., was bad news and the people she was dealing with in.the Ukraine.were bad news so I jtist want to_let you know that. The other thing, there's a lot of.talk about Biden's son,. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

    “What you’re describing is a quid pro quo,” asserted a reporter. “We do that all the time,” replied [Trump's chief of staff] Mulvaney. “Did he also mention to me the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about it. But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money … I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.” http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/mulvaney-ukraine-get-over-it.html

    After the July 25 phone call with Zelensky, as he usually does, Trump doubled down on the Biden investigation. On Oct. 3, in a news conference on the White House lawn, he called on Ukraine and China to look into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

    “If they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the Bidens,” Trump said when asked what he wanted Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to do about the former veep and his son.

    “They should investigate the Bidens,” Trump said. “Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/trump-calls-for-ukraine-china-to-investigate-the-bidens.html

    There is no getting around it. It is all well and good that Republicans can say Trump did nothing to cause his removal from office, but if the Republicans in the Senate exonerate Trump, if Trump's fans continue to insist impeachment is a sham, then the Republican Party and Trump's fans are saying:

    A) The President is permitted to ask for foreign interference in our elections to improve his chances of winning.

    B) The President is permitted to use military aid approved by Congress to a country fighting Russian aggression as a means of extortion to compel a foreign leader to comply with his wishes.

    C) To cover up his deeds, the President is permitted to use obstruction of justice.

    D) The President is permitted to ignore Congressional oversight as mandated by our Constitution.

    Is this what the Republican Party wants to be remember for?
     
  24. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uhmm... yeah... It was shown. On the so-called "transcript" itself. And then verified by multiple witnesses under oath. None that Trump had the least bit of interest in "corruption".

    Trump loses.
     
  25. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,997
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Opinions.
     

Share This Page