To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Sandy Shanks, Oct 24, 2019.

  1. opion8d

    opion8d Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2018
    Messages:
    5,864
    Likes Received:
    4,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is an ill informed opinion. Congressional oversight is what Congress says it is. Executing oversight over any member of the Executive Branch, including the president, is not only Constitutional, it is an Article I responsibility. No impeachable offenses? Abuse of power is an impeachable offense. Obstruction of Justice is an impeachable offense. Witness tampering is an impeachable offense.
     
    FreshAir and Margot2 like this.
  2. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is what Trump and his lawyer, William Barr, do not want you to know as they, House Republicans, and Senator Graham throw out various diversions to obscure the work in the impeachment inquiry. As Trump continues to say, "no quid pro quo," his own words, the evidence, and his own acting chief of staff say differently.

    In his testimony on Tuesday, William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Kiev, effectively confirmed that the President withheld military aid from Ukraine in a quid pro quo effort to pressure that country’s leader to incriminate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and smear other Democrats.

    Government sources in the Ukrainian capital said Washington pressured Zelensky's camp directly about the need to accommodate Trump's desires or no military aid.

    After confirming quid pro quo, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said this is how business is done in the Trump administration and "Get over it."

    Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper — who handles Ukraine, Russia and Eastern European policy for the Pentagon — testified that U.S. military assistance was restored on September 11 without any public statement by Zelenskiy about investigations then or since.

    On September 10, Trump was informed by his advisors that there was a serious problem regarding his political aims in Ukraine and the withholding of military aid, and Schiff knew about it.

    Next week, investigators want to hear from two officials on the national security council: Charles Kupperman, the former deputy national security adviser; and Tim Morrison, a top Russia and Eastern Europe policy specialist.

    Is it any wonder why frustrated Republicans in the House stormed the meeting room in the capitol and Graham gave us that infantile presentation, asking for a censure of the House! Republicans are desperate because the White House is avoiding the evidence and only objecting to the process. That objection has no basis in fact or circumstance. They are very concerned about the avoidance of the evidence by the White House, and Trump being the only litigator. Everyone else is silent on the issue, even Trump's counsel.

    Fool that he is, Trump even admitted his weakness. "I don't have a team ... I am the team." He never knows when to keep his mouth shut.

    https://www.npr.org/2019/10/25/7730...shell-testimony-and-revelations-from-the-east helped with this report.
     
    Margot2 likes this.
  3. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And you can't challenge anything in it. Another accusation without basis from a Trumpet. Now why am I not surprised?
     
    Margot2 likes this.
  4. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,578
    Likes Received:
    16,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You will please note I didn't accuse anything and you offered only self-serving prattle.
     
    Bridget and RodB like this.
  5. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Speaking of ill informed opinion.... In the net there is only one actual obligation that congress has in the constitution and that is to meet. There is no authority let alone obligation for executive oversight. The word oversight appears nowhere in the constitution. It sounds like you think the framers instituted three co-equal and independent branches of government by giving congress oversight authority over the president??? Neither oversight nor the constitution are what congress says they are. As I said, speaking of ill informed opinion.

    Maybe they are; maybe the are not. Congress' credibility has taken a nosedive as they bounce from one "impeachable offense" to another looking under every rock for an offense du jour that somehow might stick.
     
  6. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,619
    Likes Received:
    8,981
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Impeach because no one can beat him. Impeach and the Senate will reject the partisan notion.
     
  7. opion8d

    opion8d Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2018
    Messages:
    5,864
    Likes Received:
    4,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Article I in its entirety speaks to oversight. The laws I outlined ARE impeachable offenses being high crimes.
     
  8. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Article I says nothing about oversight. In fact, since oversight is an executive function Article II is the only part of the constitution that even hits at oversight authority -- in this case given to the president. Can I assume you favor the president having oversight authority over congress?

    "High crimes" are in the mind of the beholder.
     
  9. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First , we know a great deal of evidence against Trump. See post 27.

    Second, this is the investigation stage. It took independent prosecutor Ken Starr five years of secret investigating to come up with the articles of impeachment against Clinton. We no longer have an independent prosecutor. So, the House has to do the investigating. The Americans will be informed of their work in a month or two.

    The goal is to remove Trump from office if the evidence warrants it. It is not very likely the Dems will keep that evidence secret from Americans who must support Trump's impeachment and removal from office.
     
  10. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The three branches of our federal government are "separate," with each having their respective duties and responsibilities. They are, however, not equal in power. Only Congress has the power of impeachment over anyone in the other two branches. The political philosophy of our Constitution (and the era in which it was written) was the doctrine of "the sovereignty of the people." And, a democratic republic exercises that "sovereignty" through the elected representatives of its legislature. The President, although elected through the electoral college, is only an "administrator" of the Congressional will.
     
  11. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ken Starr was not looking for and did not come with articles of impeachment. There was nothing secret about his investigation. He kept the AG, the DOJ, and a special three-judge panel appointed to watch over Starr, among others fully informed. His activities were roundly reported in the media.
     
  12. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good but not all correct. Of course each of the three branches have their own power and authority that other branches do not have. Only congress has the power of impeachment with no checks or balances, and, most important, the authority to pass laws and legislation with some check and balances in that. Separate but equal means that no branch has jurisdiction or authority over any other branch. That is why congressional oversight can extend to the executive branch's execution and implementation of their laws but does not extend to the president. The president is the chief executive of the entire government and executes the laws passed by congress. He in no way administers the will of congress.
     
  13. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you don't think conviction upon impeachment and removal from office is "a power over another branch," I am not sure we can have a rational discussion. You are trying to argue an extreme version of the Unitary Presidency. Of course, he administers "the will of Congress," insomuch as the purpose of the Executive Branch is to carry out the laws passed by Congress. Think of it as a corporation...can the CEO hold office without the support of a majority of the stockholders? Congress represents the "stockholders" of the Republic - the sovereignty of the people. And...it's ALL common stock...none is preferred.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2019
  14. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,211
    Likes Received:
    14,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The impeachment inquiry, regardless if the impeachment outcome, is exposing the truth, despite the desperate efforts by Trump and his bum kissers to conceal it.

    Truth is good, and a knowledgeable electorate is essential to democracy, as Jefferson noted.

    The process is one that educates the People.

    Some, understandably, loathe the prospect of a better-educated electorate.
     
    Marcotic, Margot2 and stone6 like this.
  15. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You forgot what you said. I asked if you had read my report. This is your reply.

    You accused me of being "specious" and "vacuous." That's another problem Trumpets have besides forgetfulness. They have a habit of denying reality.
     
  16. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is what Trump, his lawyer, William Barr, RodB do not want you to know as they, House Republicans, and Senator Graham throw out various diversions to obscure the work in the impeachment inquiry. As Trump continues to say, "no quid pro quo," his own words, the evidence, and his own acting chief of staff say differently.

    In his testimony on Tuesday, William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Kiev, effectively confirmed that the President withheld military aid from Ukraine in a quid pro quo effort to pressure that country’s leader to incriminate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and smear other Democrats.

    Government sources in the Ukrainian capital said Washington pressured Zelensky's camp directly about the need to accommodate Trump's desires or no military aid.

    After confirming quid pro quo, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said this is how business is done in the Trump administration and "Get over it."

    Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper — who handles Ukraine, Russia and Eastern European policy for the Pentagon — testified that U.S. military assistance was restored on September 11 without any public statement by Zelenskiy about investigations then or since.

    On September 10, Trump was informed by his advisors that there was a serious problem regarding his political aims in Ukraine and the withholding of military aid, and Schiff knew about it.

    Next week, investigators want to hear from two officials on the national security council: Charles Kupperman, the former deputy national security adviser; and Tim Morrison, a top Russia and Eastern Europe policy specialist.

    Is it any wonder why frustrated Republicans in the House stormed the meeting room in the capitol and Graham gave us that infantile presentation, asking for a censure of the House! Republicans are desperate because the White House is avoiding the evidence and only objecting to the process. That objection has no basis in fact or circumstance. They are very concerned about the avoidance of the evidence by the White House, and Trump being the only litigator. Everyone else is silent on the issue, even Trump's counsel.

    Fool that he is, Trump even admitted his weakness. "I don't have a team ... I am the team." He never knows when to keep his mouth shut.

    https://www.npr.org/2019/10/25/7730...shell-testimony-and-revelations-from-the-east helped with this report.
     
    Margot2 likes this.
  17. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,578
    Likes Received:
    16,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I implied that your logic was lacking and it was largely because none of the supporting material has been proven.
     
  18. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    GOP senators who could be vulnerable in next year's elections, including some who have declined to say whether it would be appropriate for a president to use U.S. aid to get political favors from a foreign leader, have signed on to a measure condemning the House impeachment process.

    This is a stunt, a really stupid stunt as I showed in my report. It is hard to believe that this moronic resolution condemning the House for its impeachment inquiry procedures will come to a vote in the Senate. It is a diversion away from the mounting evidence against Trump, evidence neither Trump nor his GOP defenders can challenge.

    So, they try this ridiculous stunt. Republicans would be smarter if they stopped trying to defend Trump.

    Trump and the White House can't defend Trump. Their entire focus is on various diversions.
     
    Margot2 likes this.
  19. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you think Jon Huntsman resigned last August?
     
  20. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Now, THAT'S a great question! Planning a new political move or just couldn't take working for Trump anymore?
     
  21. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,578
    Likes Received:
    16,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No Idea. Probably just another dude wasn't interested in the heat of the kitchen. People get used to the way things are done in government circles where sometime this year maybe this decade is good enough and then you have suddenly work for a guy that while in his seventies sleeps about four hours a night and wants things done yesterday. It's a hell of an adjustment and a lot of people just aren't used to it and start feeling put upon.
     
    RodB likes this.
  22. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,578
    Likes Received:
    16,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not yet it hasn'tbecause the truth is they have next to nothing other assumptions by people trying desperately to cover their own asses where Ukraine is concerned.
     
    therooster likes this.
  23. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you recall Trump's disastrous meeting with Putin in July 2018?

    He shocked not only Americans but the rest of the world.

    Trump-Putin Helsinki meeting: read the full transcript - Vox
    https://www.vox.com/2018/7/16/17576956/transcript-putin-trump-russia-helsinki-press...
    Jul 17, 2018 · DONALD TRUMP: Thank you very much. Thank you. I have just concluded a meeting with President Putin on a wide range of critical issues for both of our countries.
     
  24. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,578
    Likes Received:
    16,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing disastrous about it. Unless you were CNN.
     
  25. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We might have a semantics problem, but it is semantics with very important differences. The executive branch administers/executes the laws passed by congress. He does not administer the will of congress unless their will becomes legislation. Congress can pass resolutions to express their will and, unless signed into law. the president can give it no mind. Currently a large portion of congress wills that Trump should not have been elected and that he goes away. Trump is certainly not going to administer that will.

    Congress does have the sole unchecked power to impeach and remove the president (and others), but that is highly restrictive and the only thing they can do to the president. They have no jurisdiction over the president. They can impeach but nothing else -- at least constitutionally. You seem to believe that the impeachment power gives congress almost carte blanche control over the presidency. Not by a long shot. The biggest concern with impeachment by the framers was that congress would use it as a political tool to disable the third branch of government; that concern is currently evident.

    I caveat the above with "constitutionally." There are very few checks and balances for a congress that chooses to ignore the constitution.

    Your analogy is off the mark. Congress might be compared to a heavily watered down board of directors but the people, not congress, represent the stockholders
     

Share This Page