• 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!

High Crimes And Misdemeanors

gdgyva said:
I didnt elect the dogcatcher, much less Trump

And why cant you answer my question instead of turning this into stuff about me

Impeachment is a political device to be used in dire times, when an administration has become untenable

Do the american people feel that way right now?

what do the polls tell you? are you anywhere near a consensus number of say 70%?
Click to expand...

All that is needed is 40%.
 
Deuce said:
All that is needed is 40%.
Click to expand...

you are NEVER going to impeach Trump with a american consensus poll of 40% for it

Nancy would NEVER do it.....

She would lose every purple state and maybe some blue

If the american people dont want Trump impeached, he wont be impeached

That is the job ahead for the democrats...convincing John Q Public

And that is a tall task
 
gdgyva said:
you are NEVER going to impeach Trump with a american consensus poll of 40% for it

Nancy would NEVER do it.....

She would lose every purple state and maybe some blue

If the american people dont want Trump impeached, he wont be impeached

That is the job ahead for the democrats...convincing John Q Public

And that is a tall task
Click to expand...

You're the one who started making up arbitrary thresholds based on an irrelevant opinion poll. You're aware that criminal guilt is not a matter of public opinion, yes?
 
Deuce said:
You're the one who started making up arbitrary thresholds based on an irrelevant opinion poll. You're aware that criminal guilt is not a matter of public opinion, yes?
Click to expand...

this isnt about criminal guilt....or havent you figured that out yet

this isnt about whether or not he is a total ass, and making a mockery of the presidency

if it was JUST ABOUT GUILT slick WIllie would have been impeached and sent packing....he was guilty as hell

His crimes did not warrant "impeachment and removal" according to the American people

That is the standard....are Trumps crimes, if you can prove he committed some, agregious enough for the american people to want him booted out of office.....it is a YES or a NO

they will be the final arbiters of this case....not the congressmen.....not the senators.....but that only happens if a FULL IMPEACHMENT hearing happens....which i am still doubting at this moment
 
Making democrats cry is NOT a high crime.
 
Moon said:
So when you’re under oath during a legal proceeding it’s okay to lie about certain things? Do you have a list of these things for future reference for the next time I’m under oath? Might come in handy.
Click to expand...

Your response has little to do with my prior comment. I did not excuse Pres. Clinton for his lying. I simply said that 10 of the 11 charges could have been reduced to one or two because they were little more than reiterations of the same crime - perjury.

Can't you read? I wrote that Clinton committed a crime by lying.

A bit of a change in one charge against Bill and I think it fits a certain individual

President Trump endeavored to obstruct justice during the Special Counsel's investigation by refusing to testify for two years and instructing senior White House aides with knowledge of the law that they would relay the President's false statements to the Special Counsel -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the investigation.
 
Last edited:
gdgyva said:
this isnt about criminal guilt....or havent you figured that out yet

this isnt about whether or not he is a total ass, and making a mockery of the presidency

if it was JUST ABOUT GUILT slick WIllie would have been impeached and sent packing....he was guilty as hell

His crimes did not warrant "impeachment and removal" according to the American people

That is the standard....are Trumps crimes, if you can prove he committed some, agregious enough for the american people to want him booted out of office.....it is a YES or a NO

they will be the final arbiters of this case....not the congressmen.....not the senators.....but that only happens if a FULL IMPEACHMENT hearing happens....which i am still doubting at this moment
Click to expand...

We both know the GOP does not give two ****s about Trump being a felon. He's not going to be removed from office. This is not the same thing as him being innocent. I'm not interested in whether or not you and your fellow cultists believe he committed crimes. He did what he did.
 
iguanaman said:
No Trump threatened to withhold aid until Ukraine announced an investigation into Biden and Clinton, his political adversaries. This had nothing to do with 2016.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the democrat whistleblower paraphrase based upon 3rd hand information. I'm talking about what Trump actually said as witnessed in the actual transcript of the phone conversation.
 
Helix said:
Except that Tweety extorted Ukraine to force them to be part of his election effort by withholding congressionally appropriated military aid, and multiple sources confirm it.
Click to expand...

Witnesses who heard about the phone call from Trump-hating 3rd hand parties have agreed with one voice that they think Trump meant to imply a threat supposedly connecting missiles with democrat rumors that Trump pressured Ukraine to dig up dirt on the least viable 2020 election candidate. Trump did not say that but that does not stop dummass democrat theorists from reading that into the text.
 
marke said:
Witnesses who heard about the phone call from Trump-hating 3rd hand parties have agreed with one voice that they think Trump meant to imply a threat supposedly connecting missiles with democrat rumors that Trump pressured Ukraine to dig up dirt on the least viable 2020 election candidate. Trump did not say that but that does not stop dummass democrat theorists from reading that into the text.
Click to expand...

i don't do alt reality. perhaps you'll find someone else, though.
 
gdgyva said:
you are NEVER going to impeach Trump with a american consensus poll of 40% for it

Nancy would NEVER do it.....

She would lose every purple state and maybe some blue

If the american people dont want Trump impeached, he wont be impeached

That is the job ahead for the democrats...convincing John Q Public

And that is a tall task
Click to expand...
You clearly lack all understanding of what’s happening. Trump will be impeached. The evidence is clear and the Dems already have the votes.

Whether or not Trump’s removed from office, and which/how many of his sycophants go down with him is what’s left to be determined.
 
Drawdown said:
Looks like 3 of the 4 they looked at are not likely so it would come down to obstruction of justice, which would also likely be a no if Nancy is successful in confining it to the phone call. Sure Trump will probably be impeached, but unless there is some evidence that gets people not already against him against him, it will backfire both in the Senate and in the election.
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking. I can see absolutely no good coming out of this for republicans.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You clearly lack all understanding of what’s happening. Trump will be impeached. The evidence is clear and the Dems already have the votes.

Whether or not Trump’s removed from office, and which/how many of his sycophants go down with him is what’s left to be determined.
Click to expand...

You say that with the knowledge and foresight as if it had already happened

nancy having the votes, and USING the votes is two different things....as soon as the impeachment vote happens, she puts 30 odd seats at risk in the house....and she knows it....which is why she is very wary of doing so

It hasnt....and it may not

You understand that possibility....right?

And saying i lack the understanding of what is happening? I am not saying it WONT happen....but i would give you odds it wont happen in 2019.....and may not happen at all....
 
Moderate Right said:
Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia

Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[27]

encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit

encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify

concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed

attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony

permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit

attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Currie

making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses
Click to expand...
Thanks for the refresher.
 
gdgyva said:
You say that with the knowledge and foresight as if it had already happened

nancy having the votes, and USING the votes is two different things....as soon as the impeachment vote happens, she puts 30 odd seats at risk in the house....and she knows it....which is why she is very wary of doing so

It hasnt....and it may not

You understand that possibility....right?

And saying i lack the understanding of what is happening? I am not saying it WONT happen....but i would give you odds it wont happen in 2019.....and may not happen at all....
Click to expand...
I say that with an awareness and understanding of current events, including the outcome of Tuesday night’s election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...a1d7ee-ff1f-11e9-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.html

If the House does it's job properly, and so far it looks like they are, Trump will be impeached and those so-called vulnerable Democrats in districts that Trump won in ‘16 will be fine.
 
Helix said:
i don't do alt reality. perhaps you'll find someone else, though.
Click to expand...

Did Adam Schiftt meet with the whistleblower before the whistleblower blew the whistle? Yes. Will democrats admit that? HELL no.
 
marke said:
Did Adam Schiftt meet with the whistleblower before the whistleblower blew the whistle? Yes. Will democrats admit that? HELL no.
Click to expand...

have fun with your CT. goodbye.
 
gdgyva said:
You say that with the knowledge and foresight as if it had already happened

nancy having the votes, and USING the votes is two different things....as soon as the impeachment vote happens, she puts 30 odd seats at risk in the house....and she knows it....which is why she is very wary of doing so

It hasnt....and it may not

You understand that possibility....right?

And saying i lack the understanding of what is happening? I am not saying it WONT happen....but i would give you odds it wont happen in 2019.....and may not happen at all....
Click to expand...

They're in a pretty tough spot. We all know how an actual impeachment proceeding will go. The GOP could have video of Trump stabbing a baby and they wouldn't vote to convict Trump in sufficient numbers in the Senate. They'd claim fake news, Fox News would say the video is doctored, the ultra right would say the baby had it coming, etc. So he's not going to be successfully removed from office via impeachment.

Option 1: Hold the vote in the house, it passes, goes to Senate and fails.

Option 2: Drop the whole thing.

Either way, Trump will proclaim he has been "totally exonerated," and if there's a trial a chunk of the population will buy it because "acquitted by Senate" will appear in the headlines. Regardless of what evidence was detailed at trial. We tend to forget on a message board like this that a large portion of the population just doesn't give a **** and barely pays attention to politics. So the hope is that the evidence unveiled will convince enough Democrats to get fired up to vote out the criminal president, and enough Republicans will stay home in 2020.

Problem is, you run the risk of firing up Republicans who try and close ranks around their guy, and turning off Democrats who see the Democrats failing in their goal. The question becomes about how many of each category you're going to affect.

Personally, I think doing nothing is the worse option. It may be personal bias, because if the Democrats walk away and don't even try to remove a criminal from the white house, I'm not terribly motivated to go out and vote for the useless ****s. You have to try and do the right thing, even if you know you will fail.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
They're in a pretty tough spot. We all know how an actual impeachment proceeding will go. The GOP could have video of Trump stabbing a baby and they wouldn't vote to convict Trump in sufficient numbers in the Senate. They'd claim fake news, Fox News would say the video is doctored, the ultra right would say the baby had it coming, etc. So he's not going to be successfully removed from office via impeachment.

Option 1: Hold the vote in the house, it passes, goes to Senate and fails.

Option 2: Drop the whole thing.

Either way, Trump will proclaim he has been "totally exonerated," and if there's a trial a chunk of the population will buy it because "acquitted by Senate" will appear in the headlines. Regardless of what evidence was detailed at trial. We tend to forget on a message board like this that a large portion of the population just doesn't give a **** and barely pays attention to politics. So the hope is that the evidence unveiled will convince enough Democrats to get fired up to vote out the criminal president, and enough Republicans will stay home in 2020.

Problem is, you run the risk of firing up Republicans who try and close ranks around their guy, and turning off Democrats who see the Democrats failing in their goal. The question becomes about how many of each category you're going to affect.

Personally, I think doing nothing is the worse option. It may be personal bias, because if the Democrats walk away and don't even try to remove a criminal from the white house, I'm not terribly motivated to go out and vote for the useless ****s. You have to try and do the right thing, even if you know you will fail.
Click to expand...

great points

and the issues that are probably keeping Nancy up late most nights

i will disagree slightly with the senate absolutely not convicting....based on evidence presented and how the american people see it, i give it a 25% chance....it has to be a stellar case though to make them sway enough republican senators to go against the party

the real risks for Nancy are the seats she puts at risk once she opens the vote....30 so odd democrats in Trump areas

Those seats could turn the house red again.....
 
trixare4kids said:
So what? It was still released weeks before the deadline because Trump LISTENED to his advisers.

It's not a high crime that the president listened to his advisers. :lol:
Click to expand...


Attempted bribery is still a crime. That's what is going on here.
 
trixare4kids said:
:lamo According to you.
Click to expand...

No, according to the law

Solicitation and Attempted Bribery – Bribery

it's also breach of the public trust. The last time I checked the office of the presidency is an office of public Trust

Quid pro quo with corrupt intent is not really a quid pro quo it's bribery. This is a high crime and misdemeanor as defined by the Constitution and The Federalist Papers

Four people under oath have testified thus far that this is the case.

John Ratcliff's tweet has been debunked

But even if Ratcliff 's tweet were true it's a moot point considering that zelinsky. though he may not have been aware of formal holding back of the funds were in effect he was aware that he had not yet received funds and that's sufficient for bribery attempted or otherwise

That being said Ratcliffe has been debunked
 
Last edited:
Irredentist said:
What crimes has he broken? Don't you mean what laws?
Click to expand...

About the bolded......thank gawd someone finally pointed out MR's idiot spam statement.
I'm wading through this thread and he just kept repeating this stupid phrase.
The guy doesn't even bother to read his crap.
Thank you !!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom