• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ahead of impeachment trial, Trump suggests not having it

lemmiwinx said:
He wasn't charged with a crime or misdemeanor so it's a moot point. The Constitution talks and Trump walks try again in his second term Nancy.
Click to expand...

So speaks some one who is ignoring the legal history and basis of "impeachment".
 
Anthony60 said:
Why didn't the House then go to court to get the dispute resolved? That's what happened with Nixon and the tapes.

Could it be that they didn't want it resolved? If that happened, then they couldn't drum it up as a made up charge. Trump is under no obligation to participate in Nancy's perversion of the impeachment clause. She refused to conduct it as prior impeachments, because it would fall apart. She needed a democrat only, biased investigation so she could ram it through. So bad that she's trying to dictate to the Senate on how to run it, which is more perversion from her. Trump was a 100% correct to protect the office of President and the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they saw it as the only way to avoid a 7-2 supreme court.

Go through the courts and he's impeached and pence appoints those judges.

I know y'all are leaking down your legs over the idea but I would not approve if it was going the other way.
 
ludin said:
according to nadler and pelosi this was an illegitimate impeachment so that is all that matters.
Click to expand...

Show me the link where both Gerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi stated that this is an illegitimate impeachment. That doesn't even make any sense since it was democrats who ran the investigation, heard testimonies and voted to impeach. You may be confused, they may have said that the Senate trial is an illegitimate trial if Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham have already stated that they will dismiss these charges and refuse to call any witnesses or review materials and documents. That is an illegitimate Senate trial.
 
lemmiwinx said:
He wasn't charged with a crime or misdemeanor so it's a moot point. The Constitution talks and Trump walks try again in his second term Nancy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's clear you don't understand impeachment and what high crimes and misdemeanors means. It refers to the PERSON.

No crime needed to be impeached. No misdemeanor needed to be impeached.

If Trump were potus at the time of the founders they'd have tarred and feathered him.
 
swing_voter said:
It's a waste of time and money.

It's 100% partisan, the republicans were never going to consider it.

It's just the dems way of trying to get the left to vote for them.
Click to expand...

No, its the Democrats way of recording this all of history; for political scientists and future generations to study in the context of the actual truth (which, over time, will come out). What side of history do you want to be on? Smile for the camera!
 
HumblePi said:
Show me the link where both Gerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi stated that this is an illegitimate impeachment. That doesn't even make any sense since it was democrats who ran the investigation, heard testimonies and voted to impeach. You may be confused, they may have said that the Senate trial is an illegitimate trial if Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham have already stated that they will dismiss these charges and refuse to call any witnesses or review materials and documents. That is an illegitimate Senate trial.
Click to expand...

Nadler in 1998.

"It is in fact a peaceful procedure for protecting the nation from despots, by providing a constitutional means for removing a president who misuses presidential power to make himself a tyrant or otherwise to undermine our constitutional form of government," Nadler said. “To impeach a president, it must be that serious.”

"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.

“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.

that was pretty easy to do.
 
lemmiwinx said:
Both are made up crimes. Charge Trump with a real crime and get back to us.
Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand what impeachment is.... Impeachment is not criminal court. No one goes to jail as an outcome. Its a trial about the worthiness to hold an office of public trust. Not all crimes would be impeachable; not all impeachable offenses are crime.

Abuse of Power, the President using the powers of his office for personal rather than public benefit, is the ultimate impeachable offense. Hamilton, in Federalist Paper #65, characterized High Crimes and Misdemeanors as "...the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.....". A President that uses the power of his office for personal benefit over the public good has abused the public trust.

Impeachable Offenses :: Article II. Executive Department :: US Constitution Annotated :: Justia
Impeachable Offenses | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia
Factbox: Abuse of power, obstruction - the charges against Trump explained - Reuters

Since only Congress can keep a President in check through its oversight powers, obstructing the Congress' ability to perform oversight can be obstruction of justice, which is a crime.

Study up pal. If you are going to make an argument, at least have some comprehension of the issues.
 
ludin said:
Nadler in 1998.

"It is in fact a peaceful procedure for protecting the nation from despots, by providing a constitutional means for removing a president who misuses presidential power to make himself a tyrant or otherwise to undermine our constitutional form of government," Nadler said. “To impeach a president, it must be that serious.”

"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.

“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.

that was pretty easy to do.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately these quotes were from a time when Republicans to some extent were guided not just by partisan political means but also some semblance of duty to country, logic and critical thought. We live in an age where no matter how vile Trump's behavior, spineless Republican senators bend over backwards to justify and defend, regardless of facts or obvious truths. Their concern is more with ingratiating themselves with the extremist right wing eco-sphere than that of actually representing constituents or thinking about the country. Because of changes in campaign finance laws, extreme hyperpartisan gerrymandering and widespread electoral fraud (promulgated by Republicans), they have no accountability other than to the billionaires that finance them and the propagandists that pump lies into the brainwashed minds of the uneducated republican populace.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Unfortunately these quotes were from a time when Republicans to some extent were guided not just by partisan political means but also some semblance of duty to country, logic and critical thought. We live in an age where no matter how vile Trump's behavior, spineless Republican senators bend over backwards to justify and defend, regardless of facts or obvious truths. Their concern is more with ingratiating themselves with the extremist right wing eco-sphere than that of actually representing constituents or thinking about the country. Because of changes in campaign finance laws, extreme hyperpartisan gerrymandering and widespread electoral fraud (promulgated by Republicans), they have no accountability other than to the billionaires that finance them and the propagandists that pump lies into the brainwashed minds of the uneducated republican populace.
Click to expand...

wrong he said it therefore he believes. it therefore him and pelosi set and conducted what they consider an non-legitimate impeachment against trump and they knew exactly what they were doing.
the rest of your hyperbole i have no need to deal with.
 
upsideguy said:
You clearly do not understand what impeachment is.... Impeachment is not criminal court. No one goes to jail as an outcome. Its a trial about the worthiness to hold an office of public trust. Not all crimes would be impeachable; not all impeachable offenses are crime.

Abuse of Power, the President using the powers of his office for personal rather than public benefit, is the ultimate impeachable offense. Hamilton, in Federalist Paper #65, characterized High Crimes and Misdemeanors as "...the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.....". A President that uses the power of his office for personal benefit over the public good has abused the public trust.

Impeachable Offenses :: Article II. Executive Department :: US Constitution Annotated :: Justia
Impeachable Offenses | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia
Factbox: Abuse of power, obstruction - the charges against Trump explained - Reuters

Since only Congress can keep a President in check through its oversight powers, obstructing the Congress' ability to perform oversight can be obstruction of justice, which is a crime.

Study up pal. If you are going to make an argument, at least have some comprehension of the issues.
Click to expand...

your right which is why the senate can dismiss them.
it is all political.
 
ludin said:
wrong he said it therefore he believes. it therefore him and pelosi set and conducted what they consider an non-legitimate impeachment against trump and they knew exactly what they were doing.
Click to expand...

Your arguments are so weak. Like this isn't even an argument. Do you even care about what you're saying and how you sound?
 
Anthony60 said:
Why didn't the House then go to court to get the dispute resolved? That's what happened with Nixon and the tapes.

Could it be that they didn't want it resolved? If that happened, then they couldn't drum it up as a made up charge. Trump is under no obligation to participate in Nancy's perversion of the impeachment clause. She refused to conduct it as prior impeachments, because it would fall apart. She needed a democrat only, biased investigation so she could ram it through. So bad that she's trying to dictate to the Senate on how to run it, which is more perversion from her. Trump was a 100% correct to protect the office of President and the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It would be tied up in legal court battles for years. After what Trump did with Ukraine, they felt he was an 'IMMINENT' danger to the United States.
 
ludin said:
actually it wasn't partisan on both sides. there was more bi-partisan against the articles than there was for it.
the only partisan vote and not even a full partisan vote was on pelosi.

there were a few honest democrats that voted against them.
Click to expand...


There were two, one switched his party right after the vote, just to save his seat.

The other is so apposed to impeachment for any reason he would impeach jack the ripper...
 
ludin said:
wrong he said it therefore he believes. it therefore him and pelosi set and conducted what they consider an non-legitimate impeachment against trump and they knew exactly what they were doing.
the rest of your hyperbole i have no need to deal with.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying the charges aren't serious enough to warrant impeachment? Was Nixon railroaded too for merely doing opposition research? Is Trump only guilty of loving too much? I'm sure his wife thinks so.

No, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not "normal" activities for a president. Hey, I know that Reagan and George W got away with much worse but that fact is just more evidence of the amount of slime the conservatives can tolerate representing them.

I wonder what Trump would have to do to earn conservative ire. Clearly, he would have to be caught in a gay relationship or something because plain ol' gross corruption and violating the constitution gets yawns from the modern GOP.

Liberals, what we're witnessing is just the political evolution of the right wing. They have, apparently, grown out of their past sensitivity to constitutional transgressions. Over the decades, as their representatives have stretched, further and further, the boundaries of political credulity and human decency, their constituents have learned that situational blindness is less of a disease and more of a mechanism of self-comfort.

This is a new era, people. Bad isn't bad any more. It's the new normal.
 
ludin said:
Nadler in 1998.

"It is in fact a peaceful procedure for protecting the nation from despots, by providing a constitutional means for removing a president who misuses presidential power to make himself a tyrant or otherwise to undermine our constitutional form of government," Nadler said. “To impeach a president, it must be that serious.”

"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.

“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.

that was pretty easy to do.
Click to expand...

:lamo 19fukin98!! :lamo
 
lemmiwinx said:
Both are made up crimes. Charge Trump with a real crime and get back to us.
Click to expand...

The sad thing is thst you buy this Fox News narrative. He should be in jail.
 
ludin said:
pot meet kettle.
actually there was no evidence presented because all 17 witnesses said they had no evidence.
Click to expand...

I just love how you guys keep repeating that complete fabrication over and over again as if it true...
 
GDViking said:
There were two, one switched his party right after the vote, just to save his seat.

The other is so apposed to impeachment for any reason he would impeach jack the ripper...
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point. democrats were hell bent on impeachment no matter what.
they said it before he took the oath of office they tried multiple times before they took over the senate.

their entire platform has been impeach trump. it is meaningless.
it will carry no weight except we will use it as an example of what happens when a party goes so far off the deep end
that they can no longer function rationally.
 
ludin said:
Thank you for proving my point. democrats were hell bent on impeachment no matter what.
they said it before he took the oath of office they tried multiple times before they took over the senate.

their entire platform has been impeach trump. it is meaningless.
it will carry no weight except we will use it as an example of what happens when a party goes so far off the deep end
that they can no longer function rationally.
Click to expand...

Of course many wanted him Impeached from day one.

It was already clear he had worked with Russians to get elected, he is not only the worst president in American history, he is the first illegitimate president in American history...
 
D_NATURED said:
So, you're saying the charges aren't serious enough to warrant impeachment? Was Nixon railroaded too for merely doing opposition research? Is Trump only guilty of loving too much? I'm sure his wife thinks so.
Click to expand...

I am saying there is no evidence to support the charges so the charges are bogus and do not have the weight of evidence to support them.

No, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not "normal" activities for a president. Hey, I know that Reagan and George W got away with much worse but that fact is just more evidence of the amount of slime the conservatives can tolerate representing them.
Click to expand...

you lack of argument is telling here. I am saying that the charges never happened.

I wonder what Trump would have to do to earn conservative ire. Clearly, he would have to be caught in a gay relationship or something because plain ol' gross corruption and violating the constitution gets yawns from the modern GOP.
Click to expand...
again your lack of argument doesn't surprise me. Unlike leftist we required evidence of actual crimes and crimes that have been committed.
we do not simply go on baseless accusations, speculation and hearsay.

Liberals, what we're witnessing is just the political evolution of the right wing. They have, apparently, grown out of their past sensitivity to constitutional transgressions. Over the decades, as their representatives have stretched, further and further, the boundaries of political credulity and human decency, their constituents have learned that situational blindness is less of a disease and more of a mechanism of self-comfort.
Click to expand...

This is what we call projection. Unlike leftist we support the constitution 100%.

This is a new era, people. Bad isn't bad any more. It's the new normal.
Click to expand...

That is why liberals define everything backwards.
 
GDViking said:
I just love how you guys keep repeating that complete fabrication over and over again as if it true...
Click to expand...

i will post it again so that you can ignore it like you have the past 10 other times i have posted it.

Three meetings with the president of Ukraine – the new president – and no linkage. That’s accurate?

TAYLOR: Mr. Jordan, it’s certainly accurate on the first two, first two meetings, because to my knowledge, the Ukrainians were not aware of the hold on assistance until the 29th of August.

JORDAN: The Politico article.

TAYLOR: The Politico article. The third meeting that you mention with the senators – Senator Murphy and Senator Johnson – there was discussion of the security assistance, but –

JORDAN: The linkage

TAYLOR: But there was not discussion of linkage.


Stewart bluntly asked Yovanovitch if she had “any information” regarding Trump “accepting any bribes.”

“No,” she said.

Stewart followed up by asking whether she had “any information regarding any criminal activity” that Trump “has been involved with at all.”

“No,” she said.

“Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?" House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., asked at one point in Tuesday's afternoon hearing.

Former National Security Council (NSC) aide Tim Morrison: "No."

Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker: “No."

Later, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., covered similar ground in asking the witnesses about Trump's fateful July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: "Mr. Morrison, you were on that call, and there was no quid pro quo, correct? No bribery? No extortion?"

"Correct," Morrison replied in response to each question.

"And, Ambassador Volker, I presume you got a readout of the call. ... Was there any reference to withholding aid? Any reference to bribery? Any reference to quid pro quo? Any reference to extortion?"

"No, there was not," Volker replied, again and again.

Sonland testimony
But that testimony was mostly made up of secondhand or speculative claims. He testified that he “presumed” and “came to believe” that the administration was engaged in quid pro quo for certain investigations — providing no proof or new evidence. He also said his theories about why aid was withheld were a “guess.”

He stated that in his direct contact with President Donald Trump, the president explicitly and repeatedly stated “no quid pro quo.” And in reference to a supposed push for investigations into 2016 or Burisma, Ambassador Sondland also said he “never heard it from the president.”

So you are saying all of these people perjured themselves?
 
GDViking said:
Of course many wanted him Impeached from day one.

It was already clear he had worked with Russians to get elected, he is not only the worst president in American history, he is the first illegitimate president in American history...
Click to expand...

the 2 year investigation showed that he didn't work with russia.
not sure why you keep lying.

actually he isn't illegitimate he is very much a legit president.
the conspiracy theory forum is --------------> though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom