I believe the President. Trump News aka Fox News tells me so!
Quote from: Savant on September 29, 2019, 09:47:18 amI believe the President. Trump News aka Fox News tells me so!OK, well...that is an issue for you. So again, what high crime or misdemeanor did the President commit? Now, if we wish to discuss Creep Joe, going to the Ukraine (while he was the VP) and telling the powers that be there, that the prosecutor overseeing the issue regarding Joe's son and his dealings there (and the money he was receiving), be fired...or else (roughly 1 billion dollars being withheld)....we can do that.
Quote from: NorthStar on September 29, 2019, 09:50:14 amQuote from: Savant on September 29, 2019, 09:47:18 amI believe the President. Trump News aka Fox News tells me so!OK, well...that is an issue for you. So again, what high crime or misdemeanor did the President commit? Now, if we wish to discuss Creep Joe, going to the Ukraine (while he was the VP) and telling the powers that be there, that the prosecutor overseeing the issue regarding Joe's son and his dealings there (and the money he was receiving), be fired...or else (roughly 1 billion dollars being withheld)....we can do that. Yeah I guess that would have been a problem if Biden had just stalled military aid, asked for a personal favor to dig up dirt on his major political opponent in an upcoming election , and then suggested that the Attorney General be contacted to act as his personal attorney in the matter. If Biden had done that you would have a point as that would have been a rather obvious abuse of power. The example you gave above though is pretty standard when it comes to Trump helping out his kids but I forget you didn't expect anyone would take you seriously right?
This "professor" seemingly and/or coincidentally dodged some important information...(don't worry, I did not expect you to actually find some information on your own)....https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/Furthermore, Inspector General's report regarding FISA abuses under the Nobama's watch (also involving the FBI and DOJ) and the fake dossier is/was due sometime during the fall. This impeachment circus initiated by Dem's is simply a distraction of that report. ...and this, as well.
You might like his immigration stance, his Twitter persona or his tax policies. You can still like those and admit that he screwed up. Because he did, and pretending otherwise is a willful delusion
QuoteYou might like his immigration stance, his Twitter persona or his tax policies. You can still like those and admit that he screwed up. Because he did, and pretending otherwise is a willful delusionI'm on board with that....but a screw up is not necessarily the same as a Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment.
U.S. Constitution Article IISection 4The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Bribery is the act of giving or receiving something of value in exchange for some kind of influence or action in return, that the recipient would otherwise not offer.
Quote from: NorthStar on September 30, 2019, 10:29:41 amQuoteYou might like his immigration stance, his Twitter persona or his tax policies. You can still like those and admit that he screwed up. Because he did, and pretending otherwise is a willful delusionI'm on board with that....but a screw up is not necessarily the same as a Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment. What you don't seem to grasp is that it in this case it is a "Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment." The law is very clear. The transcript is a smoking gun. And for some crazy reason, Giuliani is on TV every five minutes confessing to the crime. The fact that he doesn't think it should be a crime is irrelevant. Regarding your analogy meme, I think a better one would be to imagine Trump getting caught stealing an expensive television from Wal-Mart. Witnesses saw it and it's clearly visible on CCTV. Pulled into the security office, he offers this by way of defense: "No, I wasn't stealing, I just forgot to pay. Anyway, shoplifting laws are stupid - why can't we just take what we want? Big corporate chains can afford to lose some stock through shoplifting. They've got the resources to cover it. And why aren't you looking into the CEO of Wal-Mart? The Walton family are crooks. You should be investigating them, not me."
What you don't seem to grasp is that it in this case it is a "Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment." The law is very clear. The transcript is a smoking gun. And for some crazy reason, Giuliani is on TV every five minutes confessing to the crime. The fact that he doesn't think it should be a crime is irrelevant.
Quote from: fka on September 30, 2019, 11:14:49 amWhat you don't seem to grasp is that it in this case it is a "Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment." The law is very clear. The transcript is a smoking gun. And for some crazy reason, Giuliani is on TV every five minutes confessing to the crime. The fact that he doesn't think it should be a crime is irrelevant. The law is very clear for everyone but the President. There are some reasons for this-1) As head of state of the United States, the President is tasked with overseeing law enforcement (Justice Dept.) AND Diplomacy (State Dept.) 2) Strongly related to this is that if the President feels that something represents a national security threat to the United States, then he has broad powers in both investigation and negotiation. 3) The problem with this for going after Trump is that the Obama administration also attempted to "dig up dirt" on the Trump Administration. Perhaps not Obama directly, but certainly his intel agency heads and the FBI, whose conduct he is ultimately responsible for to varying degrees. The whole Trump-Russia investigation opened up a terrible can of worms. You can't say it was okay for Obama to use international dirt to look into Trump and then say it's wrong for Trump to do that about Biden. It's either okay for both under a broad interpretation of Presidential power or its wrong for both.4) Every conversation between world leaders is a negotiation, using leverage, and calculated for political effect. Using that standard to go after a conversation is ridiculous. Can we all be adults here and acknowledge that reality at least?5) All that being said, impeachment is a political tool, not a legal one. If the Dems can whip everyone up and steer things so Trump goes down, even under an unfair standard, that's politics.
So...again....as I am not a Constitutional scholar and others here are, what high crime has the President committed that warrants an impeachment (other than not being liked, melting snowflakes and saying mean things)?
Quote from: fka on September 30, 2019, 11:14:49 amWhat you don't seem to grasp is that it in this case it is a "Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment." The law is very clear. The transcript is a smoking gun. And for some crazy reason, Giuliani is on TV every five minutes confessing to the crime. The fact that he doesn't think it should be a crime is irrelevant. The law is very clear for everyone but the President. There are some reasons for this-1) As head of state of the United States, the President is tasked with overseeing law enforcement (Justice Dept.) AND Diplomacy (State Dept.)Actions such as wielding state resources or compromising national security in order to damage a political opponent would constitute an abuse of this power. There are probably plenty of examples in which Presidents have abused power in this manner. The difference is that they didn't get caught. And that doesn't make it right. 2) Strongly related to this is that if the President feels that something represents a national security threat to the United States, then he has broad powers in both investigation and negotiation. Which is why Trump should have pursued his Biden investigation, assuming there is actually something to investigate, though appropriate channels. Instead he did it privately through an errand boy (Giuliani) and simultaneously in his capacity as President. That was a mistake. To date, we do not know of any specific criminal charges that can be laid at the feet of anyone in the Biden-Ukraine nexus. That means Trump was acting largely on innuendo, and likely overstepped the bounds of what was permissible before there was an official investigation.3) The problem with this for going after Trump is that the Obama administration also attempted to "dig up dirt" on the Trump Administration. Perhaps not Obama directly, but certainly his intel agency heads and the FBI, whose conduct he is ultimately responsible for to varying degrees. The whole Trump-Russia investigation opened up a terrible can of worms. You can't say it was okay for Obama to use international dirt to look into Trump and then say it's wrong for Trump to do that about Biden. It's either okay for both under a broad interpretation of Presidential power or its wrong for both.See above. Obama didn't call Vladimir Putin and say "Give me dirt on Trump in exchange for cash." Or if he did, he didn't get caught. Had he done so, do you not think that Republicans would've been calling for an impeachment investigation? Or would they let it slide? And that's before we even get to the fact that so far nobody has been able to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens. If you want to argue that politicians' children sitting on lucrative Board of Directors contracts is a form of inherent corruption, I'm with you. But to date there is nothing concrete about the Bidens and criminal wrongdoing. Lindsey Graham, Stephen Miller and Jim Jordan's Sunday morning attempts to spin it that way were a disaster, and reveal exactly how little they have to go on. No sane person would've been convinced by those interviews.4) Every conversation between world leaders is a negotiation, using leverage, and calculated for political effect. Using that standard to go after a conversation is ridiculous. Can we all be adults here and acknowledge that reality at least?Sure. But there are limits to how that leverage can be used, and for good reason. Legally, a country needs to draw a line somewhere. If Trump gets a pass on this, then what if he wins another term and does it again, with China or Russia? Which countries should be able to externally influence US elections? Canada? Ukraine? Sierra Leone? And what's the upper price tag? If a few hundred million is okay, why not a billion or two billion?Or is it better to just have a blanket ban on all foreign contributions? Shoplifting is illegal because such laws preserve the integrity of property rights. Outlawing foreign contributions to US elections is an attempt to preserve the integrity of the electoral system.5) All that being said, impeachment is a political tool, not a legal one. If the Dems can whip everyone up and steer things so Trump goes down, even under an unfair standard, that's politics.True enough. But you should change "whip everyone up and steer things" to "collect evidence, conduct hearings and make a highly consequential decision based on the information that materializes through such a process."