• 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!

Trump should be impeached. Again.

Condor060 said:
My first question would be, how could you even consider Soleimani not an imminent threat?
Click to expand...

Probably because “imminent” has a meaning, and the White House was completely unable to cite any cause or evidence for an imminent attack. The White House, in fact, admitted that no such evidence existed.
 
Dans La Lune said:
The Soleimani assassination should be fully investigated, under an impeachment inquiry, to determine whether or not Trump broke federal law, violated international law, and violated the Constitution in ordering this assassination. Republicans should be fact witnesses and be forced to testify under oath at what went down at Marilago. The intel should be examined to see if there was an imminent threat (the legal justification).
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't think that will work.

It's pretty obvious that the public justifications are merely fabrications. Trump wanted a military option as a response to the protests/attacks on the Baghdad compound, and immediately went for the most extreme option. The post-911 AUMF doesn't cover this.

However, as CIC, the POTUS has enough latitude, and the laws are vague enough, and Congress isn't mad enough, to make this impeachable.
 
Cardinal said:
Probably because “imminent” has a meaning, and the White House was completely unable to cite any cause or evidence for an imminent attack. The White House, in fact, admitted that no such evidence existed.
Click to expand...

They don't need to prove an imminent attack of an identified target. He planned the attack on the US Embassy and his decades of murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians through terrorism is more than enough reason to eliminate the threat.
 
Condor060 said:
They don't need to prove an imminent attack of an identified target. He planned the attack on the US Embassy and his decades of murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians through terrorism is more than enough reason to eliminate the threat.
Click to expand...

So it’s okay to lie about an imminent attack, and it was okay for you to repeat that lie here?
 
lemmiwinx said:
Hope you guys realize eventually impeachments aren't going to mean anything any more. But go ahead knock yourselves out I love a good clown show as much as the next guy.
Click to expand...

That's really it -- it's a clown show.

Nobody takes the democratic party seriously anymore.
 
Cardinal said:
So it’s okay to lie about an imminent attack, and it was okay for you to repeat that lie here?
Click to expand...

Please provide my post where I lied about an imminent attack or where I supported the administrations claim of an imminent attack.

(Hint) What you think I might be thinking doesn't count.
 
Condor060 said:
If you are going to ignore the idiocy
Click to expand...

I'll take a shot at these idiotic OPINIONS.

Condor060 said:
1. Holding closed door hearings to eliminate any testimony they don't want the public to hear

2. Refusing any testimony that is in opposition of their claims

3. Refusing to allow the opposing party their minority day

4. Hosting only hearsay witnesses that can't testify in a Senate trial

5. Secretly leaking phone calls of opposing political opponents to the media and making false claims as to their content

6. Leaking testimony from closed door hearings to the media that supports your claims
Click to expand...

1. The impeachment inquiry is an investigation, how many investigations can you name that are held in public view, giving the investigatee knowledge he/she can use to subvert the process?

2. How many investigations allow the criminal to control the investigation?

3. The truth is they declined a Minority Day because they wouldn't have been allowed to out the whistle blower.

4. The only reason "witnesses" can't testify in the Senate is Moscow Mitch won't allow it.

5. It wasn't secret, you know about it don't you? And what was published stood on it's own merit there were no "false claims".

Republicans angry and concerned about Schiff release of phone records

You can see by the title that the article is not biased in favor of Democrats. Releasing the call transcripts was questionable, not illegal and they weren't monkeyed with.

6. What testimony was "leaked", can you document that accusation?

Condor060 said:
Having articles of impeachment that have no witnesses that can testify knowing you will never be able to remove a president but moving forward anyway tells the complete story of how this is a scam impeachment.
Click to expand...

The only "scam" of this impeachment is President tRump's resistance to the investigation; which is the cause of one the Articles of Impeachment.

Condor060 said:
The worst part is now the gloves have come off and every president that holds office will go through the very same treatment, stagnating Congress, and the only losers will be the American people.
Click to expand...

I think you're overstating. History proves impeachment has been a rare occurrence and nothing has happened to change that.
 
Last edited:
Condor060 said:
Please provide my post where I lied about an imminent attack or where I supported the administrations claim of an imminent attack.

(Hint) What you think I might be thinking doesn't count.
Click to expand...

See post 5. Even if you’ve already forgotten that you wrote it, you did in fact write it.
 
Piglet said:
That's really it -- it's a clown show.

Nobody takes the democratic party seriously anymore.
Click to expand...

They have gone so far down the rabbit hole, they have no other direction at this point.

Its actually a good thing for the country as the Democrat party won't even get it until after the 2020 election.

And I doubt they will even get it then.
 
Cardinal said:
See post 5. Even if you’ve already forgotten that you wrote it, you did in fact write it.
Click to expand...

Nope, you don't get to have me make assumptions for you. You can either quote me and give your explanation or move on.

I'm not playing your assumption games any more. Either Put up or shut up. Its up to you.
 
HumblePi said:
I did not say that, did I. Perhaps you should read my comment again. I clearly said that Soleimani was a threat, I also said that it is very questionable as to how 'imminent' of a threat he was. I will repeat this once more, the key word here is 'imminent'.
Click to expand...

And you think impeaching over the word imminent is a rational course of action. :cuckoo:
 
Condor060 said:
I know what the actual definition of Imminent means.

Its a clear indication of impending, approaching, forthcoming, looming, threatening, expected, anticipated action.

Not really sure what the new Democrat definition of imminent means.
Click to expand...

Here’s what Pompeo says:

"There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks being plotted by Qassem Soleimani," Pompeo said. "We don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where, but it was real.”

Would you say that Pompeo’s definition is correct for imminent?
 
Condor060 said:
Nope, you don't get to have me make assumptions for you. You can either quote me and give your explanation or move on.

I'm not playing your assumption games any more. Either Put up or shut up. Its up to you.
Click to expand...

Yes, you wrote post #5, and you repeated a lie here. Sorry.
 
Fletch said:
And you think impeaching over the word imminent is a rational course of action. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Imminent is the legal justification for an otherwise illegal act. So... yes.
 
Grandpappy said:
LOL they'll never give up...:mrgreen:. If Trump gets a parking ticket, they'll consider it an impeachable offense.
The level of stupid is intense.
Click to expand...

Trump tweets so we must impeach!
 
Fletch said:
Sure. Go for it. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Don’t claim to be the pro-law and pro-constitution party if you can’t obey either. I mean, what else do you have to lose? You’ve already abandoned everything else.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Don’t claim to be the pro-law and pro-constitution party if you can’t obey either. I mean, what else do you have to lose? You’ve already abandoned everything else.
Click to expand...

:cuckoo:
 
Condor060 said:
My first question would be, how could you even consider Soleimani not an imminent threat? His reason for turning oxygen into carbon dioxide is civilian murders through terrorism.

You need look no further than the 2500 Suni's who were killed under his command by drilling holes in their heads and hanging the bodies on meat hooks in several mosque.

When did the left decide Soleimani wasn't going to continue the very same terror on innocents he has done for decades? But it does tell the country where you stand on Terrorism. You would blindly excuse any and all past history of one of the worlds most horrific terrorist (to include planning the attack on a US Embassy) to go after Trump?

You're on the wrong side.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning suggests that assassination is just, which opens an ethical question. There appears to be no taste for the President and his handlers to tell the people what was the immediate threat, their all thumbs comments about one or four embassies are an embarrassment at best, and an intentional effort to mislead the People.
 
HumblePi said:
I did not say that, did I. Perhaps you should read my comment again. I clearly said that Soleimani was a threat, I also said that it is very questionable as to how 'imminent' of a threat he was. I will repeat this once more, the key word here is 'imminent'.
Click to expand...

Soleimani, an Iraqi/Iranian militia leader, aided and abetted militia groups, and one of those militia groups targeted our embassy killing a U.S. citizen.
It doesn't get anymore imminent than that.
 
HumblePi said:
Soleimani was a threat, there's no doubt about that. The burning question is, was the 'threat' so imminent that there was no time to consult with the 'Gang of Eight', Mike Pompeo, Gina Haspel and Mark Esper? Was the risk of getting the U.S. involved in a major war in the Middle East, one that could easily escalate to a nuclear conflict, worth that risk?

The only word that matters here is "imminent".
Click to expand...

And "imminent" does not mean Immediate.
 
jonny5 said:
I like where this is going. Maybe we can finally reign in all the illegal stuff the govt does. I suspect this newfound care about rule of law only applies to Trump though. Obama, Bush, Clinton also did plenty of illegal things (not to mention every congress member), and no one really cared. But hey, thanks to Trump for finally getting people to care again.
Click to expand...

LOL How soon we forget.

But while the nature of the controversies were different, we found at least five examples of congressional investigations in which congressional Republicans used the investigation process to put Obama on the political hot seat:

• Loans to the solar company Solyndra. The company collapsed after taking a $535 million federal loan guarantee, and Republicans noted that a campaign bundler for Obama was a key investor.

The loan default prompted an investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

• Alleged political bias at the Internal Revenue Service. This controversy involved charges that IRS officials were unfairly targeting conservative groups for unusual scrutiny in applications to become a tax-exempt organization.

This attracted an investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, and a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee.

• The Benghazi consulate terrorist attack in 2012, in which four Americans died, including the U.S. ambassador.

The circumstances surrounding the attack were investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, several House panels led by the House Intelligence Committee, and a specially created House Benghazi committee. In 2015, the specially created committee called Hillary Clinton -- who had been secretary of state during the attack and who was widely expected to run for president -- for a full day of televised testimony. (The two Senate investigations were actually conducted by a Democratic majority of a Democratic president.)

• The "gun-walking" program known as Fast & Furious, in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, partly during Obama’s presidency, allowed guns to be sold to Mexican nationals in the hopes of tracking down drug cartel leaders.

The program was investigated jointly by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

• The botched 2014 launch of the Affordable Care Act website, healthcare.gov. At first, the website was largely inoperable, though the government was eventually able to fix it.

The rollout was the subject of hearings by the Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

It’s worth noting that prior to becoming president, Trump himself tweeted actively about these five controversies, mostly to cheer on the probes or to criticize the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

Yes, President Trump, Congress also investigated Barack Obama | PolitiFact
 
Hypothetical said:
well you'd probably have a lot more supporters for that belief if the House hearings hadn't been run like a three ring circus.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Republican Members of both committees were comical, that's for sure. But they never provided anything exculpatory, whereas the Democratic's provided some very incriminating evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom