• 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!

GOP concedes Trump may have withheld aid for probes but says it's not impeachable

Kreton said:
Those of us who actually acknowledge the evidence that exists and has been presented, and suppressed, know what happened because we don't bury our heads in the sand screaming nah uh every time certain oompa loompas do things just because we worship them. Not every one has the type of allegiance to a single politician the way you do. Some people expect the leaders of the US to act in accordance with the law regardless of that little letter by their name.
Click to expand...

How do you know what the "evidence" is that was suppressed, since it is suppressed? The whole House impeachment was a partisan affair so I don't really give a rat's ass if the Senate trial is a partisan affair. Democrats knew the makeup of the Senate when they impeached. We already know that the precedent has been set that abuse of power is more of a partisan accusation than something you can be impeached for. Same for obstruction of Congress. The precedents have already been set and yet Democrats don't think precedents should apply to Republicans.
 
Moderate Right said:
Nobody can debate the voices in your head.
Click to expand...

Maybe go back to post #68 and try again.

Were you saying you wanted "my truth," or that "my truth" would be what the Senate would uncover with a bit of effort?

You seem to be conceding things I don't think you want to concede.


In case you're too busy, I'll go ahead and re-phrase here the question you flubbed:

If you don't want the truth of events to come out in the impeachment trial, what do you want?
 
mrjurrs said:
They received the aid because djt got caught. They wouldn't have rec'd the aid unless Congress passed a law allowing 'post-dated' aid to be released. GOA says that djt's actions requiring that law were unlawful.

But no problem right?
Click to expand...

Congress had threatened to withhold Defense spending if the aid was not released. That's why it was released.
As for the rest: The OMB disagrees with the GAO. And in any event, there is a procedure that exists for this kind of situation.
Its not a problem that ought result in the removal of the American public deciding whether Trump should be re-elected.
 
Moderate Right said:
Well, in all trials that really matter, opinions are not good enough and juries often need to be unanimous. And the accused has due process rights and can't be convicted when the prosecution doesn't prove their case. Democrats have it lucky in an impeachment trial. Instead of needing a unanimous vote by the jury you only need a 2/3's vote here. And yet the left will be all up in arms if they can't get to the 2/3's and be screaming all over that the trial wasn't fair.
Click to expand...

Most trials are all about opinion
 
Athanasius68 said:
A presient is allowed to place conditions upon foreign aid. Its that simple.
Click to expand...

A President is not allowed to place conditions upon foreign aid if one of his motives is to extract a personal benefit from doing so.

It's that simple.

What part of it don't you get, man?

The President does NOT have the authority to engage in corruption.

Because those are against the law. Its not against the law for a president to place conditions upon foreign aid. The analogy continues to be flawed.
Click to expand...

It is an abuse of office if the President places conditions upon foreign aid with the intention of extracting some sort of personal benefit.

I used the analogy to demonstrate the principle that attempts to engage in wrongdoing are wrong in and of themselves.

It was answered. It doesn't matter. Mr. Biden said what he said when his son worked where he worked. Whether the motive of Mr. Trump was pure and noble is irrelevant for an impeachment and removal issue.
Click to expand...

It matters.

If Trump had any sort of bad intent at all, if his motive was impure, and he intended, even partially to harm Biden's chances in 2020 he deserves to be immediately and removed from office.

Because engaging in official government acts in order to extract some sort of personal benefit like this is an Abuse of Office. It's unethical. It's corrupt. It is wrong.

The President does NOT have the authority to engage in corruption.

NOR does the President have the authority to ATTEMPT to engage in corruption.

Make the argument during the campaign. That's where it belongs.
Click to expand...

That argument will likely be made during the campaign. Your argument it belongs solely in the province of the electorate is FALSE.

And I know it's false because I read the Constitution. I read the Federalist Papers. I read the notes from the Constitutional Convention. And I know that Abuse of Office is an impeachable offense.

And the bottom line with your argument is that you are asserting that it does not matter if the President does corrupt things. Well, I beg to differ.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
If the Bidens were corrupt then why would you ask the corrupt government who they were in on the corruption scheme with to investigate the alleged corruption?

If the Bidens were corrupt then they would be violating the FCPA which is US law and the DOJ/SEC investigate - why were they not told to do so?



Trump has no authority to withhold aid even if Ukraine was corrupt.
Click to expand...

LOL. You guys have said that the Ukraine government wasn't corrupt anymore, therefore aid should be delivered. Are you now saying that we should be giving aid to a corrupt Ukraine government? Guess so since you said that in your last statement. Congress has withheld aid from a corrupt Ukraine government. Are you now saying that Congress shouldn't have done that? You don't make any sense. You're all over the place. It is out of our jurisdiction to go investigating inside a foreign country.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Thanks for the link. Nowhere in that article did the court say Obama was guilty of abuse of power. He wanted to bypass the senate because the senate refused to even give his nominees a hearing. He tried a recess appointment, something other presidents have done, and the court said "No you can't do that."

You see, that what is called "checks and balances." Something Trump has no use for. Trump has said "the second article of the Constitution says I can do whatever I want." It will be up the senate to decide if Trump is right.
Click to expand...

That is abuse of power! If Trump would have made recess appointments to bypass the Senate you would have been screaming it was abuse of power.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Congress had threatened to withhold Defense spending if the aid was not released. That's why it was released.
As for the rest: The OMB disagrees with the GAO. And in any event, there is a procedure that exists for this kind of situation.
Its not a problem that ought result in the removal of the American public deciding whether Trump should be re-elected.
Click to expand...

First sentence...Nope. Administration Threatened Veto Over Ukraine Aid in Spending Package - The New York Times
Second sentence...Shocking, since OMB was directly involved in the mishandling of the aid.
Asking a foreign nation for personal benefit (that would only be available to the President) is abuse of the office and definitely a charge that could result in removal.
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. You guys have said that the Ukraine government wasn't corrupt anymore, therefore aid should be delivered. Are you now saying that we should be giving aid to a corrupt Ukraine government?
Click to expand...

You're the one arguing that there was this corruption, not me.

So if there was a corruption scheme between the Bidens and the government, as you allege, then why would you ask those same people to investigate the crime they're alleged to have been a part of?
 
WillyPete said:
Maybe go back to post #68 and try again.

Were you saying you wanted "my truth," or that "my truth" would be what the Senate would uncover with a bit of effort?

You seem to be conceding things I don't think you want to concede.


In case you're too busy, I'll go ahead and re-phrase here the question you flubbed:

If you don't want the truth of events to come out in the impeachment trial, what do you want?
Click to expand...

The truth has come out all from the beginning. Every House witness testified there was no bribery, no quid pro quo, and that everything else they testified to was their opinions and their presumptions. In addition to that, precedents have already been set that presidents can abuse their power and obstruct Congress with no consequences.
 
Kreton said:
GOP concedes Trump may have withheld aid for probes but says it's not impeachable - CNNPolitics

"I don't think anything he says changes the facts," South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the majority whip, told CNN. "I think people kind of know what the fact pattern is. ... There's already that evidence on the record."

Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, added: "I think he sounds like a lot of the other witnesses, frankly. I don't know that he's got a lot new to add to it."

"Nothing in the Bolton revelations -- even if true -- would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense," Dershowitz said.

"Even if the President, any president, were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously a highly disputed matter in this case, that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power," he argued, adding, "Quid pro quo alone is not a basis for abuse of power, it's part of the way foreign policy has been operated by presidents since the beginning of time."


At least they are finally acknowledging that it did happen. I do agree to a certain extent. Quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid is not itself wrong. It became wrong when the quid pro quo was not in the best interest of the US. Quid pro quo for nothing more than political gain, personal political gain is wrong. I have to admit that I am surprised by the GOP even going this far.

(sorry for the CNN link, didn't want to put up NYT or WP due to paywalls)
Click to expand...

The motive may not be corrupt. The President has to make sure money given to foriegn countries has to go for a designated purpose and not use inappropriately in a corrupt country. This is part of his duty. Futhermore you can not ignore the possible corrupt action and involvement of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden in the Burisma incident.
 
vegas giants said:
Most trials are all about opinion
Click to expand...

Most trials need evidence, not opinions and most trials need a unanimous verdict by the jury and you guys will be crying when you can't even reach 2/3's.
 
[
QUOTE=W_Heisenberg;1071261095]A President is not allowed to place conditions upon foreign aid if one of his motives is to extract a personal benefit from doing so.

It's that simple.

What part of it don't you get, man?
Click to expand...

Presidents benefit from public acts all the time.
Warren wants to be president. Will she benefit from those who want their college loans paid off voting for her?
I mean, give me a break.


It is an abuse of office if the President places conditions upon foreign aid with the intention of extracting some sort of personal benefit.
Click to expand...

As above.

I used the analogy to demonstrate the principle that attempts to engage in wrongdoing are wrong in and of themselves.
Click to expand...

Presidential candidates are not immune from being investigated. We learned this in 2016.


If Trump had any sort of bad intent at all, if his motive was impure, and he intended, even partially to harm Biden's chances in 2020 he deserves to be immediately and removed from office.
Click to expand...

As above.


Because engaging in official government acts in order to extract some sort of personal benefit like this is an Abuse of Office. It's unethical. It's corrupt. It is wrong.
Click to expand...

As above,
And again-- it didn't happen. Aid was released. No investigation required.




That argument will likely be made during the campaign. Your argument it belongs solely in the province of the electorate is FALSE.
Click to expand...

Well, if bad thoughts are impeachable offenses, then every president will be impeached.
Its that simple.

And I know it's false because I read the Constitution. I read the Federalist Papers. I read the notes from the Constitutional Convention. And I know that Abuse of Office is an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...

Power wasn't abused. Ukraine received its aid; no investigation required.

And the bottom line with your argument is that you are asserting that it does not matter if the President does corrupt things. Well, I beg to differ.
Click to expand...

No. The bottom line is that the aid was released and no investigation was required.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
You're the one arguing that there was this corruption, not me.

So if there was a corruption scheme between the Bidens and the government, as you allege, then why would you ask those same people to investigate the crime they're alleged to have been a part of?
Click to expand...

You're getting far into the weeds. The precedent has already been set that abuse of power is actually nothing but an accusation by the other side and not an impeachable offense. Same thing goes for obstruction of Congress. The precedent has already been set that it is not an impeachable offense. None of that other stuff matters.
 
[
QUOTE=mrjurrs;1071261116]First sentence...Nope. Administration Threatened Veto Over Ukraine Aid in Spending Package - The New York Times
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with it.

Second sentence...Shocking, since OMB was directly involved in the mishandling of the aid.
Click to expand...

The aid was released and no investigation required.
Why did not Congress obey the law with regards to the dispute over the aid.

Asking a foreign nation for personal benefit
Click to expand...

When did that happen?

i
s abuse of the office
Click to expand...

Didnt happen. The aid was released.
 
Moderate Right said:
The truth has come out all from the beginning. Every House witness testified there was no bribery, no quid pro quo, and that everything else they testified to was their opinions and their presumptions. In addition to that, precedents have already been set that presidents can abuse their power and obstruct Congress with no consequences.
Click to expand...

So why block testimony at all? If you have the truth and 100% exculpatory precedent on your side, you should be in the middle of your victory lap, not hiding under the covers from any new information.

Let's hash it out now, or we'll end up thinking that there's some recourse when the next president goes off the reservation, and wind up right here again.
 
WillyPete said:
So why block testimony at all? If you have the truth and 100% exculpatory precedent on your side, you should be in the middle of your victory lap, not hiding under the covers from any new information.

Let's hash it out now, or we'll end up thinking that there's some recourse when the next president goes off the reservation, and wind up right here again.
Click to expand...

None of any of it should even be happening. Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress have already been determined to be unimpeachable offenses.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
But that's not the question I'm asking YOU.

I'm asking you the following:

"Do you honestly believe that when Trump ordered that the U.S. threaten to withhold the military aid from Ukraine so as to coerce Ukraine into announcing an investigation into the Bidens/Burisma that Trump did not do so with the intention of harming Joe Biden's chances in the 2020 election?"

So...why is that you and others refuse to answer this question in the most honest and straight-forward way possible? The silence is deafening.
Click to expand...

What I believe is, as I've expressed numerous times, is that this entire impeachment process should be rejected by the Senate unless the House Dems can present some factual evidence that Trump did anything for political/personal purposes.

I don't have a vote in the Senate. What I personally believe is irrelevant.
 
Moderate Right said:
Most trials need evidence, not opinions and most trials need a unanimous verdict by the jury and you guys will be crying when you can't even reach 2/3's.
Click to expand...

Are you going to cry if Bolton testifies?
 
Moderate Right said:
None of any of it should even be happening. Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress have already been determined to be unimpeachable offenses.
Click to expand...

Please, keep saying that.

It makes a ton of sense, and I'm sure it's a new and unique legal perspective that no one noticed before.
 
j brown's body said:
Endangering our and their national security, corrupting our elections, defying Congress. What's the harm?
Click to expand...

1) How did he endanger national security?

2) What is the Democrat rush to impeachment other than for personal gain? Try to answer by the Democrats own definition....

3) The US Government is comprised of three equal branches. The President is not subordinated to the Congress... if anything, the Democrats are guilty of this more than the President since it was the Democrats who chose to circumvent the Judicial Branch and declare that they could make a legally binding claim on privileged testimony without a court ruling.

4) Indeed, what is the harm? Incidentally, can you give me any examples of the Ukrainian aid being used to stop Russian aggressions?
 
WillyPete said:
Please, keep saying that.

It makes a ton of sense, and I'm sure it's a new and unique legal perspective that no one noticed before.
Click to expand...

There is a reason why the Democrats didn't seek to test their claim in court. Just sayin'
 
Moderate Right said:
You're getting far into the weeds. The precedent has already been set that abuse of power is actually nothing but an accusation by the other side and not an impeachable offense. Same thing goes for obstruction of Congress. The precedent has already been set that it is not an impeachable offense. None of that other stuff matters.
Click to expand...

Why aren't you addressing my question? Why are you incapable of doing so?

If the Bidens are alleged to have engaged in a corruption scheme with the Ukrainian government, then why would it make sense to ask the same government to investigate the scheme?

Why can't you answer this question?
 
jmotivator said:
There is a reason why the Democrats didn't seek to test their claim in court. Just sayin'
Click to expand...

So, are you going to just hint at the explosive truth? Do I need to watch a commercial first or something?

You guys claim to have truth, law, morality, precedent, Capt. Kirk and Steve McQueen on your side, but permitting actual testimony from people positioned to shed light on things is off the table?

Help me understand!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom