• 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!

Retaliation against a congressional witness is a crime

Barnacle said:
Neither Vindman's nor Sondland's testimony had anything to do with "telling the truth".
Click to expand...

If that were true, Trump would have had them charged with perjury.

If you have evidence to back up your accusation of the crime of perjury, please present it.
 
Barnacle said:
Neither Vindman's nor Sondland's testimony had anything to do with "telling the truth".
Click to expand...

"Telling the truth" is about as alien a concept to a Trump supporter as rocket science is to a single celled organism.
 
The AntiDonald said:
Looks like Trump has wasted no time to begin his next crime spree. Both Vindman brothers and Sondland with Mick Mulvaney coming next. I would expect him to keep picking off his enemies list one by one.

I am sure he'd love to fire Romney, but he just can't reach that far.

There is certainly a very special place in Hell just for Donald John Trump.
Click to expand...

Why would he want people who don't go in the same direction he is leading? Those needed to go three years ago. Obama destroyed the military officer corps because they weren't liberal enough, yet not one word out of the Libbies.
 
trixare4kids said:
These people serve at the pleasure of the president. Where is the crime? Or are you simply tossing some :bs at the wall hoping it sticks?
Click to expand...

No, certainly someone"slightly liberal" who picked "AntiDonald" as his screen name wouldn't be tossing some BS at the wall, hoping it sticks. Never!
 
Deuce said:
You... think telling the truth under oath is unamerican.

Jesus Christ the right wingers don’t even pretend anymore.
Click to expand...

No, left wingers have been lying for so long they "think" their opinion is the truth.
 
BlueTex said:
Where they appointed to these positions by Trump?
Click to expand...

If they weren't appointed by Trump, they should have resigned the first time they disagreed with the new boss. No statements, nor excuses, just a signed resignation.
 
snakestretcher said:
That's the response of a five year-old.
Click to expand...

And yours is the response of a busybody, sticking his nose in another country's business. Can't you even unscrew your own country before you try to tell us how to run ours?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
1. The witnesses stated facts and provided opinions upon request from members of Congress.
2. Vindman, nor any other witness, attempted to undermine foreign policy. And although the president does have the authority to set foreign policy, he does not have the authority disregard his oath of office and the Constitution to benefit himself, which is exactly what Trump did.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, the Senate disagrees with you.
 
Deuce said:
If that were true, Trump would have had them charged with perjury.

If you have evidence to back up your accusation of the crime of perjury, please present it.
Click to expand...

Nah, Trump's action taken is much more effective, and legal.
 
Captain Adverse said:
No. They were offering their OPINIONS under oath.

While everyone is entitled to an opinion, when one is acting as an advisor and is found to have acted to undermine the person they were assigned to advise, then consequences are sure to follow.

Why would anyone think they could, or should retain such a position? Especially when the person they are supposed to be advising can no longer trust their discretion?

They have every right to speak their minds, no question about that. But aren't we all at one time or another wont to say "actions have consequences?"
Click to expand...

This view is charmingly naive. Obviously, every president has advisors who disagree with them on certain issues. Their expertise and their independent minds are rightfully considered as an asset, as they can give valuable advice that the leader might not want, but needs to hear. And they protect the integrity of the process. This is a very important aspect of democratic government.

Trump doesn't want advisors, he wants subservient lackeys who will unquestionably carry out his will whether it is is policy or corrupt political strategy. Trump sees no difference between the two.

Personal loyalty carries plenty of risk. A number of Nixon's most loyal advisors went to prison. The disloyal ones helped save the republic.

Of course Trump wants unquestioning subsurvient "advisors." But should we want him to have them? I dont think so. That's the road to tyranny.
 
Last edited:
j brown's body said:
Indeed. The senate affirmed that Trump has the authority to disregard his oath of office.
Click to expand...

As the House confirmed that they had no obligation to get to the truth in a kangaroo court impeachment.

You are wrong in what the Senate affirmed. They CLEARLY said "NOT GUILTY".
 
j brown's body said:
This view is charmingly naive. Obviously, every president has advisors who disagree with them on certain issues. Their expertise and their independent minds are rightfully considered as an asset, as they can give valuable advice that the leader might not want, but needs to hear. And they protect the integrity of the process. This is a very important aspect of democratic government.

Trump doesn't want advisors, he wants subservient lackeys who will unquestionably carry out his will whether it is is policy or corrupt political strategy. Trump sees no difference between the two.

Personal loyalty carries plenty of risk. A number of Nixon's most loyal advisors went to prison. The disloyal ones helped save the republic.

Of course Trump wants unquestioning subsurvient "advisors." But should we want him to have them? I dont think so. That's the road to tyranny.
Click to expand...

More opinion?

Well in MY opinion the issue has nothing to do with not wanting "honest advice." No, it is about failing to support the President once his decision is made against the advice.

If you can't support the President when he has made his decision, then resign and you can say whatever you want.

What you DON'T DO is continue in a position while you are actively undermining the President because you think your view is right, his is wrong, and so you are going to make sure his doesn't succeed.

Then expect no repercussions if you are caught? :roll:
 
Last edited:
The AntiDonald said:
Looks like Trump has wasted no time to begin his next crime spree. Both Vindman brothers and Sondland with Mick Mulvaney coming next. I would expect him to keep picking off his enemies list one by one.

I am sure he'd love to fire Romney, but he just can't reach that far.

There is certainly a very special place in Hell just for Donald John Trump.
Click to expand...

The Senate believes this is ok; there must be a Republican majority.
 
smallvoice said:
It is no different in what the previous administrations did, but you seemed to have no issues with Obama... It's kinda the way the system works.
Click to expand...

This is sort of sad. You are reduced to supporting Obama now in your quest to defend your authoritarianism. That can't be pleasant. Why not just support freedom?
 
Barnacle said:
Neither Vindman's nor Sondland's testimony had anything to do with "telling the truth".
Click to expand...

And you know because...do you work in the White House?
 
smallvoice said:
If they weren't appointed by Trump, they should have resigned the first time they disagreed with the new boss. No statements, nor excuses, just a signed resignation.
Click to expand...

Were you ever or are you now a commissioned officer in the military?
 
Captain Adverse said:
More opinion?

Well in MY opinion the issue has nothing to do with not wanting "honest advice." No, it is about failing to support the President once his decision is made against the advice.

If you can't support the President when he has made his decision, then resign and you can say whatever you want.

What you DON'T DO is continue in a position while you are actively undermining the President because you think your view is right, his is wrong, and so you are going to make sure his doesn't succeed.

Then expect no repercussions if you are caught? :roll:
Click to expand...

The so-called policy you are talking about is forcing a foreign leader to corrupt our elections by bribing him with funds that Congress had already delegated to his country. Most people call it a crime.

You are arguing that advisers should be required to participate in crimes called "policies", and deserve to be punished when the crime succeeds.

This is considered "draining the swamp."
 
danielpalos said:
The Senate believes this is ok; there must be a Republican majority.
Click to expand...
Finally a fact.

Not just the Senate, but the whole country as well.
 
smallvoice said:
No, left wingers have been lying for so long they "think" their opinion is the truth.
Click to expand...

Back up your perjury accusation or this is just bluster. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom